My Dixie Normus Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 In a recent poll of 80k sports fans, the Sox ranked #7 in MLB. The Cubs ranked #29. Just in Chicago it was Sox (#28 in all sports), Bulls(#39), Bears(#50), Cubs (#98) and then Blackhawks (#118). Each respondent was asked to rank the teams in the following categories. BNG (Bang for the Buck): Revenues directly from fans divided by wins in the past three years FRL (Fan Relations): Ease of access to players, coaches & management OWN (Ownership): Honesty; loyalty to players and city AFF (Affordability): Price of tickets, parking and concessions STD (Stadium Experience): Friendliness of environment; quality of game-day promotions PLA (Players): Effort on the field; likability off it CCH (Coach/Manager): Strong on-field leadership TTR (Title Track): Titles already won or expected -- soon The only category the Cubs did well in was the stadium experience. http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sports...anks?year=2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkmoney Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57577 heh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Dixie Normus Posted April 1, 2007 Author Share Posted April 1, 2007 This friggin site is amazing. The only way to beat someone to the punch here is to post the news before it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I wonder how the Sox rated in the STD category. Is it like golf where the lower the score, the better? I would hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) I wonder how the Sox rated in the STD category. Is it like golf where the lower the score, the better? I would hope so. Yes, 1 = the best, 2 = second best, etc. The Sox in 2007 were #52 in STD. Sadly, we'll never reach number 1 in that category. I think the Bears pretty much locked it up for the next 5 years with that whole Paris Hilton thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) Yes, 1 = the best, 2 = second best, etc. The Sox in 2007 were #52 in STD. Sadly, we'll never reach number 1 in that category. I think the Bears pretty much locked it up for the next 5 years with that whole Paris Hilton thing. I assumed 0 would be the best possible score. But I guess maybe it's impossible to be a professional athlete and not have some kind of STD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 08:07 PM) I think the Bears pretty much locked it up for the next 5 years with that whole Paris Hilton thing. was this a std joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) I assumed 0 would be the best possible score. But I guess maybe it's impossible to be a professional athlete and not have some kind of STD. No, in fact, the higher the score, the more it says about your team. The Bears have a 64, but we know at least 20 came from one source. Kind of an aberration. The Cubs are 7. Doesn't that sum up their prospects? Surprisingly, the Blackhawks are 111. I assume that's got something to do with Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2007 -> 04:20 PM) No, in fact, the higher the score, the more it says about your team. The Bears have a 64, but we know at least 20 came from one source. Kind of an aberration. The Cubs are 7. Doesn't that sum up their prospects? Surprisingly, the Blackhawks are 111. I assume that's got something to do with Canadians. Apparently the Cubs have absolutely no game...or they're smart enough to protect themselves. I still go with the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.