(10-25-2016 05:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 05:47 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Frank is dead on, also dont underestimate the value of WGN-Cubs and the wide net it cast.

I grew up in the far south Chicago burbs, now live in Lincoln Park (North Side).

Big sox fan along with most of my high school friends, who also live on the North side of Chicago now.

From afar, and I could be wrong, but I think WGN affect is more national than local. Similar to the Braves on TBS. Where I live in Louisville, the most popular teams are the Reds (90 mins away), cardinals and Cubs. Braves fourth. Grantedchicago is it far away, but when I was a kid, the two teams on tv every day were the braves and Cubs, with the white six on win every couple of days.

WGN had the double effect where the Cubs were on cable nationally, but also kept ALL of their games on free over-the-air TV locally in the Chicago market well into the 1990s. The White Sox were actually a pioneer in terms of creating a team-owned regional sports network with Sportsvision all the way back in 1982. This was ahead of its time in terms of TV history since every team that can form an RSN now wants one (including the Cubs once their current TV deals expire in a couple of years)... but it was also a problem at the time at the local level since cable was still in its nascent stages of growth while the crosstown Cubs retained its entire schedule on over-the-air WGN. As a result, a large generation of fans came home from school to watch the Cubs and Harry Caray everyday while they didn't have access to White Sox games. Even for me as a South Sider, I watched a lot more Cubs games when I was younger simply because we didn't have cable. The Cubs really didn't shift any games to cable until it was legitimately ubiquitous (and even to this day, they still have the largest over-the-air local slate of games in MLB). The White Sox lost a good 10 to 15 years of a critical mass of young TV viewers that are now in their 20s/30s/40s compared to the Cubs.

I can see that. Cubs games were normally in the afternoon, so yeah they were on when I came home from school, and the Braves came on near the end of the game. I was a Braves fan myself, and when I was a kid I think you were either a Braves fan or a Cubs fan. The Yankees were obsolete at the time, and the Reds, even if close, were never on TV. The Cardinals AAA team was in Louisville, so they had a lot of fans, since the AAA team had some years averaging close 30k per game (that is not a typo, they outdrew some MLB teams in those years), and as the players moved up, people followed them. When I was a teen there were more Cardinals and White Sox fans, but still mostly Cubs and Braves.

But the Cubs on TV everyday, after school, and Haray Caray getting loaded made for a lot of fans.

I live in the Chicago area and grew up in North Carolina.

I consider myself a Cubs fan but have no problem cheering for the White Sox.

I have been to many meetings where the speaker must state that he is a White Sox fan and went to public school. It is a Southside thing. What the person is really trying to say is that they had a traditional blue collar experience, he works hard, and built himself from a modest beginning.

For many years, business people went to Sox games because the games were played at night. The Cubs now play at night.

(10-26-2016 01:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 12:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I lived in Baltimore for a number of years, and as best as can be expected, they did a reasonable job of doing this. Oriole Park (at Camden Yards) is not in a neighborhood per se, but its on the edge of downtown, in an area that was like a bleak separation between downtown and neighborhoods south of it.

Yes, Camden Yards was very well positioned, it created a neighborhood in what had been a bleak underside of the city near the inner harbor.

That became doubly true when the Ravens located their stadium across the street.

That only works in moderately sized cities. It means zero in a place like Houston, where supposedly revitalizing Downtown is pointless because so few people live and can easily operate (e.g. traffic) within five miles from Downtown. Only because of the way the area is structured does it make most sense to place stadiums Downtown, otherwise it might actually make more sense if a baseball stadium was placed in Katy, Sugar Land or The Woodlands.

(10-26-2016 04:35 PM)chess Wrote:  I have been to many meeting where the speaker must state that he is a White Sox fan and went to public school. It is a Southside thing. What the person is really trying to say is that they had a traditional blue collar experience, he works hard, and built himself from a modest beginning.

As in any HS in the current South Suburban Conference, Southwest Suburban Conference, or Southland Conference.

Probably could throw a few working class private schools into the mix from the East Suburban Catholic as well.

It's interesting how Chicago is the only one of the multi-team baseball cities not to lose one of them. Boston, Philly, and St. Louis were going to lose one in the long run no matter what because those cities aren't big enough for more than one, but the Braves were a mile away from Fenway and the A's / Browns shared parks with the Phillies and Cardinals so that was the nail in the coffin. Nothing differentiated them as the losers, which is why I'm so surprised the Clippers play in the Staples Center instead of Anaheim or somewhere they could build a market.

New York on the other hand was more than large enough for three teams heavily divided by geography, but politics and the allure of California pushed out the Dodgers and Giants. Chicago on the other hand has the divide discussed on this thread which gives both teams a reasonable base of support, but it's still impressive how neither team has left the city. In all my baseball readings over the years I've seen a number rumors about the Sox; there's well-known instances like their near-move to St. Pete, there are lesser known ones like when they almost went across the border to Milwaukee after the Braves moved to Atlanta, and some are just weird, like when they almost agreed to do a city shuffle with Charles Finley where they'd move to Seattle and the A's would replace them in Chicago. It's amazing they've stayed there through all of it, although the city is big enough that they'd probably get an expansion team if a move happened.

You're forgetting that the Cardinals of the NFL predate the Bears they moved from Chicago in 1960

(10-25-2016 04:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 04:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Party atmosphere? That's only part of it.

The Cubs have/had the more affluent Northside, the historic stadium, the Ivy, Harry Caray, home runs literally leaving the stadium, the old fashion scoreboard, seating on apartments across the street, WGN games, the faint view of the lake, the Loveable Losers mantra, 1908, 1945, etc... It's more than just a few people partying, with the Cubs it's the team, game and then the various sideshows.

Well, yes, I do think it's all of that put together. There are a lot of hardcore Cubs fans that are far beyond the partying. The elderly Cub fan lady in the front row that they kept showing on Fox is actually our nanny's son-in-law's grandmother. She's 90-years old and has had season tickets for several decades. Of course, maybe she has some partying bona fides since one of the Wrigleyville bars apparently has a dedicated barstool reserved for her! I hope I'm still enjoying life like that when I get to that age! That type of fandom is truly multi-generational, which is particularly special.

Met her at a game in in 2014.
Age level at Cubs games is heavily influenced by proximity to home plate.

In the book Scorecasting, a couple of interesting observations.
Cubs attendance is less influenced by winning percentage than any team in baseball.
Cub fans are not price sensitive when it comes to tickets but are when it comes to beer prices. An increase in beer prices, hurts attendance more than an increase in ticket prices.
While White Sox fans are price sensitive on tickets and less so on beer prices.

When my parents built a house across town in Searcy, Arkansas instead of renting, one of the splurges in 1980 was adding cable TV and moving from having four channels to a whopping 12 channels.

One of those channels was WGN and 14 year old me suddenly could spend the summer watching baseball on TV instead of going outside to escape the only TV option which was soap operas. Became a Cubs fan that summer and it was Jack Brickhouse calling the games, not Harry.

(10-26-2016 06:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's interesting how Chicago is the only one of the multi-team baseball cities not to lose one of them. Boston, Philly, and St. Louis were going to lose one in the long run no matter what because those cities aren't big enough for more than one, but the Braves were a mile away from Fenway and the A's / Browns shared parks with the Phillies and Cardinals so that was the nail in the coffin. Nothing differentiated them as the losers, which is why I'm so surprised the Clippers play in the Staples Center instead of Anaheim or somewhere they could build a market.

I always thought it was interesting that Browns moved to Baltimore, which was 110 miles from Philadelphia. A's moved to Kansas City, which was 230 miles from St. Louis. Two franchises relocated, two new markets but hardly didn't change the geography of MLB.

(10-26-2016 10:09 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 06:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's interesting how Chicago is the only one of the multi-team baseball cities not to lose one of them. Boston, Philly, and St. Louis were going to lose one in the long run no matter what because those cities aren't big enough for more than one, but the Braves were a mile away from Fenway and the A's / Browns shared parks with the Phillies and Cardinals so that was the nail in the coffin. Nothing differentiated them as the losers, which is why I'm so surprised the Clippers play in the Staples Center instead of Anaheim or somewhere they could build a market.

I always thought it was interesting that Browns moved to Baltimore, which was 110 miles from Philadelphia. A's moved to Kansas City, which was 230 miles from St. Louis. Two franchises relocated, two new markets but hardly didn't change the geography of MLB.

The AL and NL used to compete for geographic territory. Expansions have not always been in lock step with each other. The old Washington Senators needed a regional rival. The Braves to Milwaukee didn't work so well but the Braves to Atlanta opened up the whole south for the NL. The AL never got a southern foothold, except maybe Dallas getting the new Washington Senators. Now with Houston moving to the AL they own the southwest. The A's and Royals in KC would limit the Card's reach west. The A's in Oakland and the Angels in LA gave the AL a foothold in California. The NL responded with the San Diego Padres.

(10-26-2016 10:09 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I always thought it was interesting that Browns moved to Baltimore, which was 110 miles from Philadelphia. A's moved to Kansas City, which was 230 miles from St. Louis. Two franchises relocated, two new markets but hardly didn't change the geography of MLB.

IIRC from a recent biography of Bill Veeck, the Browns went to Baltimore since the AL owners hated him and wanted to push him out of ownership by rejecting his attempts to relocate anywhere. Eventually he just gave up and sold it to a group based in Baltimore, though KC would've probably made more sense in hindsight. The A's on the other hand moved there because the guy who bought them from the Mack family owned the minor league stadium and Yankee Stadium, and his ties with New York won him the votes to move.

Interestingly enough, the Cardinals almost moved in the early fifties instead. Cards owner Fred Saigh was indicted on tax evasion, so when he was forced to put the team up for sale the only legitimate offers initially were from Milwaukee and Houston (where the Cardinals AAA club was). Only an eleventh-hour deal with Anheuser-Busch kept them in St. Louis and doomed the Browns to the moving truck.

(10-26-2016 10:40 PM)NoDak Wrote:  The AL and NL used to compete for geographic territory. Expansions have not always been in lock step with each other. The old Washington Senators needed a regional rival. The Braves to Milwaukee didn't work so well but the Braves to Atlanta opened up the whole south for the NL.

Actually, the Milwaukee Braves were an incredible success initially, they set attendance records and were a winning organization. The only reason they moved was because they were sold to an owner who craved a large regional market for television, something they no longer had after the old Senators moved to Minnesota.

And there's baseball history with L&H, sorry for the hijack.

(10-26-2016 06:14 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's interesting how Chicago is the only one of the multi-team baseball cities not to lose one of them. Boston, Philly, and St. Louis were going to lose one in the long run no matter what because those cities aren't big enough for more than one, but the Braves were a mile away from Fenway and the A's / Browns shared parks with the Phillies and Cardinals so that was the nail in the coffin. Nothing differentiated them as the losers, which is why I'm so surprised the Clippers play in the Staples Center instead of Anaheim or somewhere they could build a market.

New York on the other hand was more than large enough for three teams heavily divided by geography, but politics and the allure of California pushed out the Dodgers and Giants. Chicago on the other hand has the divide discussed on this thread which gives both teams a reasonable base of support, but it's still impressive how neither team has left the city. In all my baseball readings over the years I've seen a number rumors about the Sox; there's well-known instances like their near-move to St. Pete, there are lesser known ones like when they almost went across the border to Milwaukee after the Braves moved to Atlanta, and some are just weird, like when they almost agreed to do a city shuffle with Charles Finley where they'd move to Seattle and the A's would replace them in Chicago. It's amazing they've stayed there through all of it, although the city is big enough that they'd probably get an expansion team if a move happened.

I agree that it's interesting that the Dodgers & Giants left while the White Sox stayed.

But the White Sox would have no reason to relocate nowadays. They have the hearts & souls of a market (southside Chicago) that is about the size of greater Pittsburgh or St. Louis. As an added bonus, when they win they get the added attention of a whole other market (the rest of Chicagoland) that is the size of Boston or Atlanta.

(10-25-2016 11:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Obviously, this is very exciting time for Cubs fans and I wanted to wish both Clevelanders and Chicagoans good luck in the World Series, which begins tonight.

A few weeks ago I was in Chicago for business reasons and I was taking a cab to the airport and the taxi driver was chatting me up about where I was from. My favorite thing about Chicago is the people. They remind me a lot of Pittsburghers and I think we naturally get along. We're both a little bit goofy.

Anyway, during the conversation he said something that I never thought about and I'm interested in peoples' opinions here.

We were talking about sports – that's what us men do, right? – and I congratulated him on the Cubs' great season and asked if he was looking forward to the playoffs? I told him that I sincerely believed/believe that this is their year to end the century-plus long streak without a World Series championship.

He told me that he was a White Sox fan and he detested the Cubs more than any other team in sports. He was literally the first person I have met on the trip but did not like the Cubs. That was all anyone wanted to talk about in the three days I was there. It was also all over the local news and everything else. Chicago clearly has Cubs fever.

However, I also understand that the White Sox have a following and there probably are a lot of people inside the city of Chicago and in suburban Illinois who don't like the Cubs. I'm sure it's very much the same in New York with regard to the Mets and the Yankees.

Anyway, I mentioned to him that he was the first White Sox fan I had met on my trip and he chalked that up to socioeconomics, which really surprised me.

I always assumed that it was a geographic thing. That people born on the North Side of Chicago rooted for the Cubs and people born on the South Side of Chicago rooted for the White Sox. I thought that the suburbs were probably mixed based on where people's ancestors came from. I also suspected that there are a lot of people that don't really care and will go whichever way the wind blows.

He said that was partly true but it was mostly a wealth thing. According to my cab driver/sociologist/economist, people throughout Chicago of a certain socioeconomic status tend to root for the Cubs. The middle and lower middle-class people tend to root for the White Sox. He also said the Cubs fans are mostly there for the party and that the White Sox fans are the true baseball fans in the city.

Is any of that true?

I know in New York City it is definitely more geographic than anything. For example, the people who root for the Jets tend to root for the Mets and the Islanders. They also tend to be residents of Long Island or Queens. The people who root for the Yankees – who typically come from any of the other four major boroughs – tend to root for the Giants and the Rangers.

Is it a similar dynamic in Chicago or is it as socioeconomic as my cabdriver suggested? That really floored me and had me thinking the whole way home. As I'm getting ready for the World Series tonight I started to think about it again and I wanted to pose the question to people who would know.

True

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(10-25-2016 12:30 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 11:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Obviously, this is very exciting time for Cubs fans and I wanted to wish both Clevelanders and Chicagoans good luck in the World Series, which begins tonight.

A few weeks ago I was in Chicago for business reasons and I was taking a cab to the airport and the taxi driver was chatting me up about where I was from. My favorite thing about Chicago is the people. They remind me a lot of Pittsburghers and I think we naturally get along. We're both a little bit goofy.

Anyway, during the conversation he said something that I never thought about and I'm interested in peoples' opinions here.

We were talking about sports – that's what us men do, right? – and I congratulated him on the Cubs' great season and asked if he was looking forward to the playoffs? I told him that I sincerely believed/believe that this is their year to end the century-plus long streak without a World Series championship.

He told me that he was a White Sox fan and he detested the Cubs more than any other team in sports. He was literally the first person I have met on the trip but did not like the Cubs. That was all anyone wanted to talk about in the three days I was there. It was also all over the local news and everything else. Chicago clearly has Cubs fever.

However, I also understand that the White Sox have a following and there probably are a lot of people inside the city of Chicago and in suburban Illinois who don't like the Cubs. I'm sure it's very much the same in New York with regard to the Mets and the Yankees.

Anyway, I mentioned to him that he was the first White Sox fan I had met on my trip and he chalked that up to socioeconomics, which really surprised me.

I always assumed that it was a geographic thing. That people born on the North Side of Chicago rooted for the Cubs and people born on the South Side of Chicago rooted for the White Sox. I thought that the suburbs were probably mixed based on where people's ancestors came from. I also suspected that there are a lot of people that don't really care and will go whichever way the wind blows.

He said that was partly true but it was mostly a wealth thing. According to my cab driver/sociologist/economist, people throughout Chicago of a certain socioeconomic status tend to root for the Cubs. The middle and lower middle-class people tend to root for the White Sox. He also said the Cubs fans are mostly there for the party and that the White Sox fans are the true baseball fans in the city.

Is any of that true?

I know in New York City it is definitely more geographic than anything. For example, the people who root for the Jets tend to root for the Mets and the Islanders. They also tend to be residents of Long Island or Queens. The people who root for the Yankees – who typically come from any of the other four major boroughs – tend to root for the Giants and the Rangers.

Is it a similar dynamic in Chicago or is it as socioeconomic as my cabdriver suggested? That really floored me and had me thinking the whole way home. As I'm getting ready for the World Series tonight I started to think about it again and I wanted to pose the question to people who would know.

This is a topic that I could probably write an entire book about (and I'm pretty sure a lot of historians/sociologists/economists/urban planners have already done so).

On a personal level, I'm a huge White Sox fan and that's largely due to the fact that I grew up in the South Suburbs of Chicago. Now, I'll still be rooting for the Cubs in the World Series (I'm not a grudge holder) mainly because my wife and son are huge Cubs fans and I'm fairly certain that I've attended and watched more Cubs games in my lifetime than 99% of the people that claim to be Cubs fans.

The overarching issue is that socioeconomic status and geography in Chicago are very closely intertwined. Generally speaking, the North Side of Chicago (and then extending further to the North Suburbs, which includes the uber-wealthy North Shore towns of John Hughes 1980s movies fame like Ferris Bueller, The Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink and Home Alone) is the wealthy professional side of town and the South Side of Chicago is the less-wealthy blue collar side of town. That doesn't hold true in ALL instances, but it's a very well-established and stark geographic line in the sand. The South Loop (which includes Soldier Field, the Museum Campus, Grant Park and McCormick Place) is physically on the South Side and has become a gentrified land of expensive condos, but it's still immediately adjacent to the downtown area and the lake, so it has the benefit of that location. Once you get past the South Loop, Chinatown and any further south than White Sox Park, it turns into a sea of blighted neighborhoods with only a handful of nice pockets (e.g. Hyde Park where the University of Chicago is located).

In contrast, nearly all of the entire North Side (and remember that Chicago is a very large city physically and population-wise) is gentrified. Once again, you'll see some small pockets of lingering ungentrified neighborhoods with higher crime (e.g. Uptown), but by-and-large, that whole swath of the city is the most expensive real estate on a per square foot basis in the Midwest.

Note that this is why people that don't live in Chicago need to understand the context of the inflammatory crime statistics that get reported in the national media. Chicago is literally "A Tale of Two Cities" with a very well-defined geographic line that also has a direct correlation of socioeconomic status. If you took the North Side of Chicago, the Loop and the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Loop (e.g. the South Loop and West Loop), you would have a geographically contiguous city larger than San Francisco and Boston with a crime rate that is as low as Toronto, Canada and one of the wealthiest and educated population bases in the country. (We can call that "Thriving Chicago".) If you took the South and West Sides of the city, however, you would have one of the worst crime areas in the US with massive urban blight. (We can call that "Dying Chicago".) In a way, the Chicago crime stats simultaneously exaggerate the problem and under-report the problem. They're exaggerated in one way because the whole swath of the city that is "Thriving Chicago", which includes all of the downtown and tourist areas that 99.99% of the people that come to Chicago visit, is probably about as safe of an environment as you'll get in a large US city, yet the entire town seems to get thrown under the bus with these crime rates. (Anyone that suggests walking around downtown Chicago is dangerous is a complete idiot, and I don't even mean it in a "You just need to be careful in a big city" way. Downtown Chicago is an objectively safe place.) Unlike Los Angeles, Miami, Orlando, or a whole host of other US cities, you do NOT just go from a nice block to a bad block in Chicago. You have to really go out of your way (and far from where the typical tourist ventures) to end up in a bad area of Chicago. The bad neighborhoods, for better or worse, are completely geographically separated from the good neighborhoods in Chicago - it's more akin to the separation between San Francisco and Oakland than it is to a place like LA (where you can go from multi-million dollar houses to ghettos within a couple of blocks). Of course, that also means that the crime occurring is extremely highly concentrated in the worse-off neighborhoods, which is a very different problem.

There is also a historic basis for the North/South divide since the days of the late-1800s/early-1900s when heavy industry was at its peak in Chicago and the rest of the Midwest. Simply put, if you could afford it, you didn't want to live downwind from the factories and stockyards because of the smoke, pollution and smell. That meant that the more desirable real estate was located north of those factories... and that is where the wealthier people chose to live. This established the North Side of Chicago as the wealthier part of the city and various factors, such as the gentrification in the North Side and the crime on the South Side that followed decades later, exacerbated that even further. (Note that Chicago isn't the only city that established this North=wealthy/South=poorer pattern due to avoiding the downwind pollution of the factories. Milwaukee and Indianapolis had very similar real estate patterns and those have held on to this day.)

Now, beyond geography of Chicago natives, I do also think that the Cubs are particularly special in the sense that they might be the most "adoptable" team in all of sports. That is, people that are transplants from elsewhere that move to Chicago adopt the Cubs at an extraordinarily high rate. (Maybe only the Red Sox compare on this front.) Pretty much every sports fan that is a Chicago native is a Bears fan while being split between the Cubs and White Sox. If you ask a native Chicagoan who the #1 sports team in town is, they will almost certainly say the Bears even in awful seasons like the current one. However, if you're a non-native Chicagoan, there is an extremely high likelihood that you adopt the Cubs as your baseball team while keeping your other former hometown allegiances. You can see this with all of the people that move to Chicago from Wisconsin - you would pry their Packers fandom from their cold, dead hands, but they are largely more than happy to jump on the Cubs bandwagon.

Part of it is that a lot of these transplants come to Chicago right out of college (e.g. all of the Big Ten grads that descend upon the city every year), and the places that they disproportionately move to are Lakeview (which is where Wrigleyville is located) and Lincoln Park (which is on the North Side and only a couple of El stops away from Wrigley). As a result, going to games at Wrigley becomes a rite of passage social event for all of these 20-somethings that moved in from all over the country in a way that I don't think can really be comparable to anywhere other than the area around Fenway in Boston. These 20-somethings all end up becoming Cubs fans even if they grew up elsewhere (and they don't latch onto the Bears or other Chicago teams at quite the same level, although the 1990s Bulls and recent vintage Blackhawks certainly had huge bandwagons). When they become 30-somethings, they end up moving to the suburbs and taking their Cubs fandom with them... and then a new set of 20-something college grads move in and the cycle repeats. College grads make more money than non-college grads, so that reinforces the socioeconomic difference between many Cubs and White Sox fans even beyond geography (although, as I've said, geography and socioeconomic status are intertwined in Chicago).

Now, there are certainly exceptions. Based on my education, income level and where I live now (Naperville), I probably look like a Cubs fan. However, I still carry the White Sox fandom from where I grew up. As a general matter, though, there's a very strong connection between geography and socioeconomic status in Chicago that is more pronounced than what you'll see in many other cities.

^^^^^^^^what he said ^^^^

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(10-26-2016 11:26 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 01:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  To add to Frank's answer - White Sox fandom outside of the southside/South suburbs is rare.

All the outlying/rural/small cities in Illinois from a line that goes from Champaign northwest (north of Springfield) is Cubs territory, as well as a lot of Iowa.

South of that line the Cardinals (baseball only) start to take over. I was a minority as a Cub fan growing up in Springfield.

Good point. My dad grew up in Nokomis, IL, about 220 miles from Chicago but only 85 miles from St Louis. He's a lifelong (baseball) Cardinals fan and everyone he knew growing up was too, but he also has always been a Bears fan, never a Cardinals (football) fan.

Yup - the Football Cardinals didn't make an impact outside of the immediate St. Louis area - even then, most of the Illinois side were and still are Bears fans.

The Chicago Bears invented professional football. George Halas was the league's first commissioner. They have won 9 NFL titles, 7 while the Cardinals were in Chicago. The Bears have 34 Hall of Fame inductees of which 27 spent a majority of their career with the Bears. I can't name a Cardinals Hall of Famer from the Chicago period.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(10-26-2016 12:23 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 05:37 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 05:08 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As an aside, how does that break down in Chicago? Who is more popular in the Windy City, Northwestern or Illinois and is that too socioeconomic?

Amazing in many ways to say this, but Northwestern and Illinois are no more popular, and may even be less popular, than a Notre Dame, Ohio State or Wisconsin in Chicago.

I cannot emphasize enough how (regardless of marketing, looking at you Chicago's Big Ten Team Northwestern) there is no organic growth of Northwestern or Illinois (or NIU, damn it) fans with newcomers to Chicago or even Chicagoland.

Completely agree. I lived in Chicago as a kid and didn't know any Illinois or Northwestern fans. My impression was that Notre Dame was #1, and walking through Wrigleyville a few years ago reinforced that impression.

Correct. All of my family except me were ND fans when I was a kid

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(10-27-2016 09:46 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 11:26 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 01:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  To add to Frank's answer - White Sox fandom outside of the southside/South suburbs is rare.

All the outlying/rural/small cities in Illinois from a line that goes from Champaign northwest (north of Springfield) is Cubs territory, as well as a lot of Iowa.

South of that line the Cardinals (baseball only) start to take over. I was a minority as a Cub fan growing up in Springfield.

Good point. My dad grew up in Nokomis, IL, about 220 miles from Chicago but only 85 miles from St Louis. He's a lifelong (baseball) Cardinals fan and everyone he knew growing up was too, but he also has always been a Bears fan, never a Cardinals (football) fan.

Yup - the Football Cardinals didn't make an impact outside of the immediate St. Louis area - even then, most of the Illinois side were and still are Bears fans.

The Chicago Bears invented professional football. George Halas was the league's first commissioner. They have won 9 NFL titles, 7 while the Cardinals were in Chicago. The Bears have 34 Hall of Fame inductees of which 27 spent a majority of their career with the Bears. I can't name a Cardinals Hall of Famer from the Chicago period.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Ernie Nevers is really the only marquee player that comes to mind when thinking about Chicago Cardinals football. However, you're correct that the Bears have a history in the NFL that only a few franchises can approach.

(10-27-2016 10:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:46 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 11:26 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 01:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  To add to Frank's answer - White Sox fandom outside of the southside/South suburbs is rare.

All the outlying/rural/small cities in Illinois from a line that goes from Champaign northwest (north of Springfield) is Cubs territory, as well as a lot of Iowa.

South of that line the Cardinals (baseball only) start to take over. I was a minority as a Cub fan growing up in Springfield.

Good point. My dad grew up in Nokomis, IL, about 220 miles from Chicago but only 85 miles from St Louis. He's a lifelong (baseball) Cardinals fan and everyone he knew growing up was too, but he also has always been a Bears fan, never a Cardinals (football) fan.

Yup - the Football Cardinals didn't make an impact outside of the immediate St. Louis area - even then, most of the Illinois side were and still are Bears fans.

The Chicago Bears invented professional football. George Halas was the league's first commissioner. They have won 9 NFL titles, 7 while the Cardinals were in Chicago. The Bears have 34 Hall of Fame inductees of which 27 spent a majority of their career with the Bears. I can't name a Cardinals Hall of Famer from the Chicago period.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Ernie Nevers is really the only marquee player that comes to mind when thinking about Chicago Cardinals football. However, you're correct that the Bears have a history in the NFL that only a few franchises can approach.

Funny story. As a baby there are pictures of me in a crib with Bears stuff around me all the time. I once told someone that referring to being indoctrinated as a Bears fan, that orange was one of the first primary colors I remember as a baby.

Him: Ummm...I don't think orange is a primary color.
Me: It is in Chicago...

(10-27-2016 09:46 PM)panama Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 11:26 AM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 03:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-25-2016 01:45 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  To add to Frank's answer - White Sox fandom outside of the southside/South suburbs is rare.

All the outlying/rural/small cities in Illinois from a line that goes from Champaign northwest (north of Springfield) is Cubs territory, as well as a lot of Iowa.

South of that line the Cardinals (baseball only) start to take over. I was a minority as a Cub fan growing up in Springfield.

Good point. My dad grew up in Nokomis, IL, about 220 miles from Chicago but only 85 miles from St Louis. He's a lifelong (baseball) Cardinals fan and everyone he knew growing up was too, but he also has always been a Bears fan, never a Cardinals (football) fan.

Yup - the Football Cardinals didn't make an impact outside of the immediate St. Louis area - even then, most of the Illinois side were and still are Bears fans.

The Chicago Bears invented professional football. George Halas was the league's first commissioner. They have won 9 NFL titles, 7 while the Cardinals were in Chicago. The Bears have 34 Hall of Fame inductees of which 27 spent a majority of their career with the Bears. I can't name a Cardinals Hall of Famer from the Chicago period.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Incorrect - the Decatur Staleys did not exist until 1920. The Cardinals were formed in 1898. There were pro leagues in Ohio, PA, Indiana and Ill/Wisconsin prior to the formation of the NFL.

The Cardinals were one of the original NFL Franchises, one of only two still in existence (Bears are the other)