Is “The 78” Dead? Or even more alive? Fire announce plans for SSS

[southsider2k5]

50 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Since 1995, after the new stadium bounce wore off, the White Sox have ranked higher than 15th in MLB attendance only ONCE - that was 2006 when they were reigning WS champs.   One season in three decades.....that's it.  Even when they were playing well, they were always in the bottom half of the league.   They were actually in the bottom third of the league 19 times over this period.  Here are the numbers and they don't lie:

https://www.thebaseballcube.com/content/mlb_attendance/

The romanticized idea that they draw well at their current location if only they'd field a good team is total fan fiction.  History has shown that fielding a competitive team gets them to around 15th to 17th in attendance and only winning a World Series gets them into the top 10. Having a stadium right off the expressway and with tons of surface parking lots isn't helping attendance despite the personal anecdotes about how great it is for individual fans.   

Other than rebuilding this organization, which is priority #1, the new owners are going to have to do something about the stadium situation going forward.   There is no doubt in my mind that the incoming owners are well aware of this.

And outside of a World Series title, it takes YEARS for fans to start showing up again.  This last time with back to back playoff appearances, they really didn't.

When things are bad, no one shows up.  This location doesn't really add anything to the attendance or viewing of this franchise.  Look at what Cubs attendance looks like in down years.  THAT is a homefield advantage when people to go just see the stadium, no matter what the team looks like.

Is this stadium easy for me to get to?  Yes.  Will it be easier to get to than one at the 78, also yes, but only if I drive.  But the proof is in the historic numbers.  People don't go to see the White Sox because of the park.  They go to see them win.  That's it.  If there was a park factor, attendance wouldn't fall off to the bottom of MLB when they are bad.

[Dick Allen]

Until Michael Jordan, the Bulls were the White Sox, drawing well when they were good, and drawing flies when they were not. Now they are the Cubs. As mediocre as can be, but still at or near the top in attendance even with ridiculous ticket prices. Maybe that happens to the White Sox once day, but the problem is JR. If you think the park is part of the problem, it was built how he wanted it, blue seats and all. It's far superior now that it was back then.

[southsider2k5]

48 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Until Michael Jordan, the Bulls were the White Sox, drawing well when they were good, and drawing flies when they were not. Now they are the Cubs. As mediocre as can be, but still at or near the top in attendance even with ridiculous ticket prices. Maybe that happens to the White Sox once day, but the problem is JR. If you think the park is part of the problem, it was built how he wanted it, blue seats and all. It's far superior now that it was back then.

I don't even know that it is "part of the problem", but I do know it does nothing to move the needle with fans and attendance.  "It's not that bad" Stadium does nothing for the White Sox.

[Dick Allen]

50 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I don't even know that it is "part of the problem", but I do know it does nothing to move the needle with fans and attendance.  "It's not that bad" Stadium does nothing for the White Sox.

Which makes the case they gave him what he wanted last time, and he screwed up. Why at 90 years old would anyone think he can now get it right? Maybe Indiana will want them.

[Sleepy Harold]

 

[77 Hitmen]

25 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Which makes the case they gave him what he wanted last time, and he screwed up. Why at 90 years old would anyone think he can now get it right? Maybe Indiana will want them.

Agreed that I wouldn't trust JR on the design of any new stadium given how badly he screwed up pre-renovations New Comiskey.  

But if the Sox build a new stadium, it'll be primarily funded by the Ishbias.  They're not going to let Jerry dictate the ballpark design when they'd be the ones sinking something like $1B to get the place built.  

Edited Monday at 08:38 PM by 77 Hitmen

[77 Hitmen]

5 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

Yes - I am as sentimental as they come, I've been going to games in Bridgeport for decades, and it would pain me a bit to see the site of so many memories lay vacant.  I would have loved if the ownership had more vision and created 35th/Shields as an entertainment destination; maybe that's still in the cards, and if it is I'd be open to listening.  But I think it's a huge stretch to suggest the current location or ballpark are drawing fans on their own.  The attendance figures reinforce that story.  A new ballpark that's still South of the Loop but more connected to downtown and other entertainment options could be a huge boon to the team and would get even this nostalgic curmudgeon excited.

That's how I feel about it.  I've obviously been pretty vocal in this thread in favor of a new ballpark at the 78, but it would be sad for them to leave 35th & Shields.  I've had a lot of good memories at the current park bringing my kids there as they were growing up and it would be hard to say goodbye to that.

I used to be a huge advocate for the current park - blaming the poor image it has outside of the Sox fan base on Cubs fans and other "haters".  But over time, I decided to stop deluding myself into thinking the bad press it gets is because the world is against the White Sox.  Going to several other ballparks in other cities also helped open my eyes to how much more character they and their surroundings had and how generic and isolated from its surroundings Rate Field is.  

Maybe they can do something to develop an entertainment district at the current location.  We'll see, I have my doubts that such a thing could get enough visitors year round to Bridgeport to be a success, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that.  Building a new ballpark at the site of Old Comiskey would be one way to erase all the inherent design flaws of the current stadium that can't be fixed by more renovations, but they'd still have to address the lack of other things to do around the area.  That's just the economic reality today - expecting to draw a lot of fans to a ballpark who just want to drive there, see the game, and drive back home is rarely successful anymore.  

Edited Monday at 11:06 PM by 77 Hitmen

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I don't even know that it is "part of the problem", but I do know it does nothing to move the needle with fans and attendance.  "It's not that bad" Stadium does nothing for the White Sox.

....and if there's one franchise that really needs to do something to significantly move the needle, it's the White Sox.

After years of losing market share to the Cubs under JR's incompetence, it's going to take more than just making it to the first round of the playoffs on a regular basis to really change the dynamics in Chicago.  

Edited Monday at 11:34 PM by 77 Hitmen

[NO!!MARY!!!]

16 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

That's how I feel about it.  I've obviously been pretty vocal in this thread in favor of a new ballpark at the 78, but it would be sad for them to leave 35th & Shields.  I've had a lot of good memories at the current park bringing my kids there as they were growing up and it would be hard to say goodbye to that.

I used to be a huge advocate for the current park - blaming the poor image it has outside of the Sox fan base on Cubs fans and other "haters".  But over time, I decided to stop deluding myself into thinking the bad press it gets is because the world is against the White Sox.  Going to several other ballparks in other cities also helped open my eyes to how much more character they and their surroundings had and how generic and isolated from its surroundings Rate Field is.  

Maybe they can do something to develop an entertainment district at the current location.  We'll see, I have my doubts that such a thing could get enough visitors year round to Bridgeport to be a success, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that.  Building a new ballpark at the site of Old Comiskey would be one way to erase all the inherent design flaws of the current stadium that can't be fixed by more renovations, but they'd still have to address the lack of other things to do around the area.  That's just the economic reality today - expecting to draw a lot of fans to a ballpark who just want to drive there, see the game, and drive back home is rarely successful anymore.  

The problem isn’t the stadium, it’s the location. They can rebuild old Comiskey across the street in its original footprint and the attendance woes would remain, just as they did in the late 80s when Wrigley, Fenway and Tiger Stadium were being worshipped by the nostalgia crowd while Comiskey was consistently ignored. 
 

They need a location other than 35th and Shields, though I don’t know where that is, honestly. The team has been unable to grow the fan base, so I don’t think any place would automatically solve the attendance issue. 
 

[ptatc]

According to a St. Louis newspaper, pritzger said in a news conference that illinois is open to using sales tax as an incentive to fund large scale business projects such as for the Bears or St. Louis Cardinals.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/pritzker-to-cardinals-bears-and-anyone-else-with-a-stadium-illinois-is-open-for-business/63-21dad951-63c5-4808-81e2-2ef3d2349826

Edited Tuesday at 06:29 PM by ptatc

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, ptatc said:

According to a St. Louis newspaper, pritzger said in a news conference that illinois is open to using sales tax as an incentive to fund large scale business projects such as for the Bears or St. Louis Cardinals.

Go figure.  Indiana popped up, and Illinois figured it out.

[ptatc]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Go figure.  Indiana popped up, and Illinois figured it out.

Politics 😪

[The Beast]

22 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

I also saw this tweet from David Kaplan.

[Melton1972]

1 hour ago, The Beast said:

I also saw this tweet from David Kaplan.

Interesting. Where in Portage would they want to build a stadium?

[southsider2k5]

17 minutes ago, Melton1972 said:

Interesting. Where in Portage would they want to build a stadium?

Bonita's proposal revolved around the north end of town near the toll road.

[77 Hitmen]

5 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

The problem isn’t the stadium, it’s the location. They can rebuild old Comiskey across the street in its original footprint and the attendance woes would remain, just as they did in the late 80s when Wrigley, Fenway and Tiger Stadium were being worshipped by the nostalgia crowd while Comiskey was consistently ignored. 
 

They need a location other than 35th and Shields, though I don’t know where that is, honestly. The team has been unable to grow the fan base, so I don’t think any place would automatically solve the attendance issue. 
 

Valid points, though I'd argue that the current stadium has fundamental flaws (and no, I'm not talking about which way it's facing) that can't really be fixed by renovations.  But yes, they could build a new stadium across the street and get the design totally right....and it still won't help enough because they'd still be at a location that people just aren't interested in going to for other things before and after the game. 

There's no good or easy answers for this franchise to grow the fan base after years of neglect under the current ownership.   The Ishbias have their work cut out for them.

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, ptatc said:

According to a St. Louis newspaper, pritzger said in a news conference that illinois is open to using sales tax as an incentive to fund large scale business projects such as for the Bears or St. Louis Cardinals.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/pritzker-to-cardinals-bears-and-anyone-else-with-a-stadium-illinois-is-open-for-business/63-21dad951-63c5-4808-81e2-2ef3d2349826

Not gonna happen with the Cardinals, but I wonder if this funding source could help get a new Sox stadium built.

[77 Hitmen]

Fox 32 discussion on the Bears stadium situation. 

Some interesting points brought up here:

- The Indiana site would be in Hammond, by Wolf Lake on what is now a public golf course

- Don't know much about the Portage site, but they think it's a pie in the sky proposal.

- Not a lot of buildable space near the Hammond site for a stadium district development.

 

 

[Harry Chappas]

I do not think the Indiana site is looking at an entertainment district. 

[The Mighty Mite]

Something I’ve thought about, 2 very important things have happened in the last 40+ years that has affected the plight of the White Sox.
  
1. Wrigley Field has become a National Landmark and the Cubs are the darlings of Chicago baseball.       
2. Because of JR the White Sox are now a laughing stock and the fan base has shrunk.    
There’s been other issues, but these 2 to my thinking have put us where we are today.

Before these 2 things happened, attendance for the 2 Chicago franchises down through the years were just about even with spurts for the Cubs in the 1930s and the White Sox in th1950s up until 1966.      
On any other given year before the 1990s the team  that had a better year for the most part outdrew the other team, so Comiskey's location didn’t hurt the Sox that much. There is not a damn thing that the White Sox can do about Wrigley Field. What the Sox must do with new ownership is to build a consistent winning team that would build up the franchise to acceptable levels were they would draw around 2 million a year and when they are competitive draw close to 3 million, they can’t continue to be competitive once every 10+ years or so and can’t make it out of the first round of the playoffs, they won’t build the fan base that way. The Sox are like the Mets and the Angels, they will be the second team in their respective cities and there probably isn’t anyone alive that will see that change. The difference is the Mets and Angels still have decent fan bases as they have larger populations to draw from than the Chicago area has. New York has 15 million, LA has 12 million while  Chicago is about 9.5 million. Bottom line on all this is that a new Sox ballpark without a decent fan base isn’t going to matter whether it’s built at the 78 or 35th and Shields, at this point I’m OK with either location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by The Mighty Mite

[Autumn Dreamin]

[soxrwhite]

3 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Something I’ve thought about, 2 very important things have happened in the last 40+ years that has affected the plight of the White Sox.
  
1. Wrigley Field has become a National Landmark and the Cubs are the darlings of Chicago baseball.       
2. Because of JR the White Sox are now a laughing stock and the fan base has shrunk.    
There’s been other issues, but these 2 to my thinking have put us where we are today.

Before these 2 things happened, attendance for the 2 Chicago franchises down through the years were just about even with spurts for the Cubs in the 1930s and the White Sox in th1950s up until 1966.      
On any other given year before the 1990s the team  that had a better year for the most part outdrew the other team, so Comiskey's location didn’t hurt the Sox that much. There is not a damn thing that the White Sox can do about Wrigley Field. What the Sox must do with new ownership is to build a consistent winning team that would build up the franchise to acceptable levels were they would draw around 2 million a year and when they are competitive draw close to 3 million, they can’t continue to be competitive once every 10+ years or so and can’t make it out of the first round of the playoffs, they won’t build the fan base that way. The Sox are like the Mets and the Angels, they will be the second team in their respective cities and there probably isn’t anyone alive that will see that change. The difference is the Mets and Angels still have decent fan bases as they have larger populations to draw from than the Chicago area has. New York has 15 million, LA has 12 million while  Chicago is about 9.5 million. Bottom line on all this is that a new Sox ballpark without a decent fan base isn’t going to matter whether it’s built at the 78 or 35th and Shields, at this point I’m OK with either location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bridegeport has changed since then.