- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Cubs deserve to lose badly
Posted on 10/15/15 at 8:56 am to WestCoastAg
Posted on 10/15/15 at 8:56 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
sorry bud. rangers have that covered
Sorry bud, Cleveland sports have that covered.
0
Posted on 10/15/15 at 9:18 am to Whiznot
Easy ground ball that gets under Rizzo's glove to lose the NLCS would be awesome.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 9:22 am to Whiznot
The University of Georgia Sidewalk Fan Association - We're Miserable, and Would Like Some Company
Posted on 10/15/15 at 9:50 am to Whiznot
I agree 100%, and this is why I root against the Cubs. I didn't really care for them prior to the Bartman incident, but I've actively rooted against them ever since. Their fans deserve constant misery & heartbreak after that. frick 'em.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 9:58 am to Whiznot
Posted on 10/15/15 at 10:30 am to Whiznot
Lumping all Cubs fans in with the relatively few who "wanted to lynch Steve Bartman" is just as short-sighted as those who blamed Bartman for the loss. The difference is, emotions were running high for those fans when they acted irrationally. You've had 12 years to think about it, and you still came up with this really shitty thread.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 10:33 am to Whiznot
What about the Cardinals fans for the way they treated Don Denkinger? They sent him death threats and all kinds of shite as well, when in reality they should have caught the pop up and there shouldn't have been a passed ball. They also still had game 7 to play.
I know its different because he is an umpire and not a fan, but there have been many scapegoats in baseball history.
I know its different because he is an umpire and not a fan, but there have been many scapegoats in baseball history.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 10:50 am to LST
What bugs me most about the Cubs start way back in '84. Prior to that, no one gave a shite about the Cubs. They have one good year, combined with Harry on the mike, and all of the sudden everyone was a Cub fan. The worst example of bandwagon jumping I have ever seen. The dirty secret was that the ChiSox routinely out-drew the Cubs. But if you listened to the media, the Cubs were some kind of historic franchise.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 11:54 am to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
The dirty secret was that the ChiSox routinely out-drew the Cubs. But if you listened to the media, the Cubs were some kind of historic franchise.
It helped the Cubs when the Tribune company took over. WGN had just become a superstation, they bought Harry away from the Sox and broadcast their club to the nation.
I wish had been around to see Harry and Jimmy Piersall drink, yell and sing the 7th inning stretch during broadcasts at Old Comiskey.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 12:16 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
What bugs me most about the Cubs start way back in '84. Prior to that, no one gave a shite about the Cubs. They have one good year, combined with Harry on the mike, and all of the sudden everyone was a Cub fan. The worst example of bandwagon jumping I have ever seen. The dirty secret was that the ChiSox routinely out-drew the Cubs. But if you listened to the media, the Cubs were some kind of historic franchise.
Got it. So in your mind, a shitty team that's allegedly has a full bandwagon since '84 is to be hated, but all the other fanbases, where the bandwagon fills up once the team is actually good, are to be applauded? Got it.
These anti-Cubs arguments are literally at odds with each other to the point of being comical.
Cubs fans are bandwagon: They've been in the top 1/3 of MLB for attendance for years and years, and routinely invade other teams stadiums.
Cubs fans are only there for the party: If they only care about the party at Wrigley, why do they invade other stadiums? Why were people legitimately crying in the stands in 2003? Why were some people so upset over that if they don't care about wins and losses? You know what this is? It's about the only excuse people could come up with to try and discredit a fan base that supports the team through it all. And you know what? Wrigley is fun...no apologies for that. But we also love the Cubs. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
A couple fun facts on the fanbases:
2014 Attendance:
Cubs 11th
Toronto 17th
Mets 21st
Kansas City 25th
Houston 26th
2015 Attendance:
Cubs 6th
Kansas City 10th
Mets 12th
Texas 16th
Houston 22nd
I see bandwagon people, with the exception of 1 team. You can figure out which one.
#micdrop
Posted on 10/15/15 at 12:27 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Should have gone with the #micflip
Posted on 10/15/15 at 12:31 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
I see bandwagon people, with the exception of 1 team. You can figure out which one.
It can't be Texas or Toronto since evidently they only played one season.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 12:51 pm to Tigertown in ATL
quote:
It can't be Texas or Toronto since evidently they only played one season.
In 2015, Toronto was 8th. Why would their attendance have improved so much in 2015? Hmmm.
In 2014, Texas was 9th. This, I do not understand.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 2:23 pm to Chucktown_Badger
I could be wrong, but I think Tideroller's point was that the Cubs didn't have a uniquely loyal fanbase prior to '84. Their attendance figures were far below the league average for years.
Every winning team gets bandwagoners, but Tribune Co. was able to use their national network to market an otherwise ordinary ballclub and their rundown ballpark in an era when no one else could. It was a genius way to build the support they have today.
Every winning team gets bandwagoners, but Tribune Co. was able to use their national network to market an otherwise ordinary ballclub and their rundown ballpark in an era when no one else could. It was a genius way to build the support they have today.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 2:31 pm to nvasil1
quote:
I could be wrong, but I think Tideroller's point was that the Cubs didn't have a uniquely loyal fanbase prior to '84.
I don't know about that. The '69 Cubs still have a huge following...I mean Billy Williams, Ron Santo, Ferguson Jenkins, Ernie Banks....
But anyways, even if we just go to '84, that's still 31 years ago. That's some old arse bandwagon fans
Posted on 10/15/15 at 3:04 pm to Whiznot
The Bartman episode was and still is hideous.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 3:08 pm to LSU_Cubs
quote:
That's some old arse bandwagon fans
Exactly. If they had turned into the Yankees in 1984, the term bandwagon might apply. Bandwagon fans don't hang around for 34 years watching a team win only 5 division titles and 9 total playoff games in that time period.
Posted on 10/15/15 at 3:11 pm to LSU_Cubs
quote:
I don't know about that. The '69 Cubs still have a huge following...I mean Billy Williams, Ron Santo, Ferguson Jenkins, Ernie Banks.... But anyways, even if we just go to '84, that's still 31 years ago. That's some old arse bandwagon fans
And they should, that was a great team. There are a ton of Sox fans my age because we remember '93 fondly...Big Hurt, Bo, Fisk, Raines, Guillen, Ventura, Black Jack...I guess you could technically call us bandwagon fans from that era.
I'm not calling fans for 31 years bandwagoners. I'm just saying the Cubs didn't always have traditionally fantastic support, especially prior to '84. Their accessibility on WGN allowed them to continue gaining non-local fans, even throughout the lean years.
This post was edited on 10/15/15 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 10/15/15 at 4:22 pm to nvasil1
quote:
I could be wrong, but I think Tideroller's point was that the Cubs didn't have a uniquely loyal fanbase prior to '84. Their attendance figures were far below the league average for years.
In the 1940s the cubs had an above average following.
Starting in the 1960s, they've pretty much been average or above the NL average every year.
LINK
So I would argue it goes back well before 1984.
This post was edited on 10/15/15 at 4:23 pm
Posted on 10/15/15 at 4:23 pm to Whiznot
'Deserve' has got nothing to do with it. 
Go Cubbies.
Go Cubbies.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News