PDA

View Full Version : WGN Radio will not broadcast Cubs games during Blackhawks games



croce_99
05-26-2010, 05:10 AM
I know quite a few of you follow the cubs with WGN Radio: (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100525&content_id=10426224&notebook_id=10426226&vkey=notebook_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc)


WGN Radio announced Tuesday it will air all of the Blackhawks' playoff games, and some of them conflict with Cubs' broadcasts. The Cubs' games will be heard on WIND 560 AM on June 2, June 4 and possibly June 9, if Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals is necessary.

giventofly
05-26-2010, 05:25 AM
Good news, I say.

I bet Matchstckman is pissed.

Str1fe5
05-26-2010, 08:29 AM
Its the right call. So would broadcasting the game on TV over a Cubs game. Sorry, championship hockey > regular season anything, even the Cubs.

CubbieBlue17
05-26-2010, 08:38 AM
Its the right call. So would broadcasting the game on TV over a Cubs game. Sorry, championship hockey > regular season anything, even the Cubs.

I agree completely!

semperfi
05-26-2010, 08:42 AM
Agreed.

toovey107
05-26-2010, 08:56 AM
The Hawks have definitely kept me sane during this Cubs season.

Cubs420
05-26-2010, 11:40 AM
I don't have a problem with it at all, I think it would be stupid to do otherwise...

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 12:14 PM
Good news, I say.

I bet Matchstckman is pissed.

You're damn right I am. Why are they switching from a team that a lot of people like for one that no one likes? Where's the logic in that WGN?

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 12:24 PM
You're damn right I am. Why are they switching from a team that a lot of people like for one that no one likes? Where's the logic in that WGN?

awwww :rolleyes:

This was the obvious thing that had to be done.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 12:25 PM
Its the right call. So would broadcasting the game on TV over a Cubs game. Sorry, championship hockey > regular season anything, even the Cubs.

No, because Team with rabid National Fanbase > Team with much smaller fanbase, most of which has been around for less than 6 months.

If this stretched into TV it would be even more of a joke than it currently is.

CUBDOM4life
05-26-2010, 12:29 PM
You're damn right I am. Why are they switching from a team that a lot of people like for one that no one likes? Where's the logic in that WGN?


No, because Team with rabid National Fanbase > Team with much smaller fanbase, most of which has been around for less than 6 months.

If this stretched into TV it would be even more of a joke than it currently is.

Dudes, this is the Stanley Cup. It's not a regular series.

It's the ****ing championship. It will have plenty of followers.

MJ-BULLS
05-26-2010, 12:29 PM
Its the right call. So would broadcasting the game on TV over a Cubs game. Sorry, championship hockey > regular season anything, even the Cubs.

agree.

Hawks at potentially winning a ship>Cubs regular season games.

now, if it was a cubs post season game, thats totally different.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 12:38 PM
Dudes, this is the Stanley Cup. It's not a regular series.

It's the ****ing championship. It will have plenty of followers.

And it's not preempting the Cubs on TV, so there's no issue. Strife threw out a hypothetical scenario, and I threw out that that scenario would be horsecrap. This hockey fan nonsense is ridiculous, I feel like I know more about it from the dozen or so games of NHL 10 I've played then most of the guys who come into the bar all decked out in their Toews jerseys.

I know there's real fans out there, particularly on here(because obviously a message board devoted to sports will have more legit fans), but most of the people following the Hawks right now couldn't have named you anyone besides Kane or Toews two months ago. If they were to pre-empt the Cubs for that it would be crap.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 12:38 PM
Dudes, this is the Stanley Cup. It's not a regular series.

It's the ****ing championship. It will have plenty of followers.

I would bet less than a regular season Cubs game. I can't prove it, but the WGN radio has a gigantic transmitter and the signal goes very far. At night you can hear it almost to the east coast. No one that far is going to give a **** about the Blackhawks but a lot of people nationwide care about the Cubs.

I don't know where to look up specific game ratings but I would bet dollars to donuts that all recent Cubs games have had better ratings than any of the non-conflicting Hawks games that were on WGN.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 12:42 PM
I would bet less than a regular season Cubs game. I can't prove it, but the WGN radio has a gigantic transmitter and the signal goes very far. At night you can hear it almost to the east coast. No one that far is going to give a **** about the Blackhawks but a lot of people nationwide care about the Cubs.

I don't know where to look up specific game ratings but I would bet dollars to donuts that all recent Cubs games have had better ratings than any of the non-conflicting Hawks games that were on WGN.

Just from experience.. Of the last weekend.. I was able to pick up WGN Radio in Des Moines last weekend.

No **** there are more Cubs fans than Hawks fans. It's still in the WGN radio contract that Stanley Cup Finals has priority over any Cubs regular season game.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 12:55 PM
Just from experience.. Of the last weekend.. I was able to pick up WGN Radio in Des Moines last weekend.

No **** there are more Cubs fans than Hawks fans. It's still in the WGN radio contract that Stanley Cup Finals has priority over any Cubs regular season game.

And that's fine, but it was a dumb clause in the contract.

CUBDOM4life
05-26-2010, 12:56 PM
And it's not preempting the Cubs on TV, so there's no issue. Strife threw out a hypothetical scenario, and I threw out that that scenario would be horsecrap. This hockey fan nonsense is ridiculous, I feel like I know more about it from the dozen or so games of NHL 10 I've played then most of the guys who come into the bar all decked out in their Toews jerseys.

I know there's real fans out there, particularly on here(because obviously a message board devoted to sports will have more legit fans), but most of the people following the Hawks right now couldn't have named you anyone besides Kane or Toews two months ago. If they were to pre-empt the Cubs for that it would be crap.

I understand and agree with you about the fans. At work I have to deal with a bunch of drunken boaters, and when I where any of my Hawks shirts they start spewing out a bunch of stupid ********, pretending they really know the game.

We all know there are more Cub fans than Hawk fans, but most of Chicago (and it's sport fans) will be following this series since it is the SC. More than have been following the rest of the post season. I'm sure you guys are well aware that championships don't regularly come to Chicago.

This isn't dirrected at you Jilly, but how are all these bandwagon hockey fans any different than the douche bags who sit in the bleachers at Wrigley?

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:01 PM
I understand and agree with you about the fans. At work I have to deal with a bunch of drunken boaters, and when I where any of my Hawks shirts they start spewing out a bunch of stupid ********, pretending they really know the game.

We all know there are more Cub fans than Hawk fans, but most of Chicago (and it's sport fans) will be following this series since it is the SC. More than have been following the rest of the post season. I'm sure you guys are well aware that championships don't regularly come to Chicago.

This isn't dirrected at you Jilly, but how are all these bandwagon hockey fans any different than the douche bags who sit in the bleachers at Wrigley?

Because unlike the Cubs fanbase, the Hawks fanbase is 99% bandwagon since only 217 people cared about them before 2007.

1908_Cubs
05-26-2010, 01:03 PM
Eh, I see where they're coming from. Not to mention, WGN is probably looking to grow the audience of Hawks fans. Cubs fans will show up no matter what, you take away 4 radio broadcasts, big deal. However with the Hawks having a real shot here to get their hockey base up into the larger levels, they're making the correct long term choice here.

CUBDOM4life
05-26-2010, 01:06 PM
Because unlike the Cubs fanbase, the Hawks fanbase is 99% bandwagon since only 217 people cared about them before 2007.

Wrong. You don't seem too educated on how a fan base begins and expands.

The Cubs fanbase is ****ing full of idiots who attend Wrigley to party.

Don't kid yourself.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 01:08 PM
I understand and agree with you about the fans. At work I have to deal with a bunch of drunken boaters, and when I where any of my Hawks shirts they start spewing out a bunch of stupid ********, pretending they really know the game.

We all know there are more Cub fans than Hawk fans, but most of Chicago (and it's sport fans) will be following this series since it is the SC. More than have been following the rest of the post season. I'm sure you guys are well aware that championships don't regularly come to Chicago.

This isn't dirrected at you Jilly, but how are all these bandwagon hockey fans any different than the douche bags who sit in the bleachers at Wrigley?

I don't actually think that's true. This isn't the Bulls or Bears or Cubs/Sox where non-sports fans are suddenly going to turn on the tv. IT's still not a huge deal because hockey's a second tier sport.

As for teh bolded part. It's easy. Even if the proportions to new idiot Blackhawk fans to Cubs fans who only like the team because it's trendy are the same. You're still shutting out more real fans by shutting out the Cubs game.

Ron!n
05-26-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't actually think that's true. This isn't the Bulls or Bears or Cubs/Sox where non-sports fans are suddenly going to turn on the tv. IT's still not a huge deal because hockey's a second tier sport.

As for teh bolded part. It's easy. Even if the proportions to new idiot Blackhawk fans to Cubs fans who only like the team because it's trendy are the same. You're still shutting out more real fans by shutting out the Cubs game.
Especially since those bandwagon fans arent going to be the ones listening to the game on the radio anyways.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:12 PM
Wrong. You don't seem too educated on how a fan base begins and expands.

The Cubs fanbase is ****ing full of idiots who attend Wrigley to party.

Don't kid yourself.

I'm far from kidding myself. I don't know what this "how fanbases begin and expand" stuff is about, but if its to say that even a quarter of the people who are going "crazy" for the hawks right now actually cared before 2007, well, then you are wrong. 1/4 would be ridiculously optimistic, but let me give you the benefit of the doubt.

1908_Cubs
05-26-2010, 01:13 PM
I don't actually think that's true. This isn't the Bulls or Bears or Cubs/Sox where non-sports fans are suddenly going to turn on the tv. IT's still not a huge deal because hockey's a second tier sport.

As for teh bolded part. It's easy. Even if the proportions to new idiot Blackhawk fans to Cubs fans who only like the team because it's trendy are the same. You're still shutting out more real fans by shutting out the Cubs game.

Shutting out more fans? Yes. However you build far less fans blacking out the Hawks and going with the Cubs games on those days. Cubs fan base isn't in need of a build. The Hawks are. Hockey is. All of which means: money. WGN wants to make more off their Hawks broadcasts.

It's the best chance WGN and Chicago is going to have to build their fanbase. Young stars. Stanley Cup. Against a team with a rabid fan base like Philadelphia has. National TV. This is Chicago's big chance to make the Hawks a huge money maker. WGN sees it.

I've got tons of friends back home in Chicago who have suddenly become Hawks fans. Friends of mine who claim hockey is more important to them than baseball now. WGN has a chance to build a fan base here. Most die-hard fans start off as bandwagon fans, if you think about it, anyways.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:18 PM
Shutting out more fans? Yes. However you build far less fans blacking out the Hawks and going with the Cubs games on those days. Cubs fan base isn't in need of a build. The Hawks are. Hockey is. All of which means: money. WGN wants to make more off their Hawks broadcasts.

It's the best chance WGN and Chicago is going to have to build their fanbase. Young stars. Stanley Cup. Against a team with a rabid fan base like Philadelphia has. National TV. This is Chicago's big chance to make the Hawks a huge money maker. WGN sees it.

I've got tons of friends back home in Chicago who have suddenly become Hawks fans. Friends of mine who claim hockey is more important to them than baseball now. WGN has a chance to build a fan base here. Most die-hard fans start off as bandwagon fans, if you think about it, anyways.

This is actually a pretty legitimate argument: suffering a bit now in terms of advertising revenue in hopes to increase future revenue. At least it's based in logic. As opposed to people saying "Dude, it's the Stanley Cup! It's more important than a Cubs regular season game."....which, obviously, is mentally challengable.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 01:21 PM
is it that hard to change the dial over to 560am on 2.. maybe up to 4 nights..

give me a ****ing break. I'm a diehard Cubs fan and a longtime (since the 90's) Hawks fan.

The Hawks deserve their time in the sun. If you guys don't like it.. Too bad..

Grow a pair for a few nights of your life.

1908_Cubs
05-26-2010, 01:22 PM
This is actually a pretty legitimate argument: suffering a bit now in terms of advertising revenue in hopes to increase future revenue. At least it's based in logic. As opposed to people saying "Dude, it's the Stanley Cup! It's more important than a Cubs regular season game."....which, obviously, is mentally challengable.

I personally agree with the statement that a Stanley Cup game is more important, than me personally, than a few Cubs games in mid-June. But I grew up in a very pro-hockey house. So I've had ingrained in me since childhood that hockey = big deal. Now, the Cubs are still my favorite team. But for a few weeks a year when I'm in the playoffs with the Flyers, their playoffs take precedence. Also, the Cubs usually suck. And if we'rent for the Flyers this year I'd have had to have watched this crap team a lot more. And i'd be very angry.

But looking at WGN's thought, it's money. It's always money. They could care less of the impact of things. Only 'ze cash money.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 01:24 PM
Shutting out more fans? Yes. However you build far less fans blacking out the Hawks and going with the Cubs games on those days. Cubs fan base isn't in need of a build. The Hawks are. Hockey is. All of which means: money. WGN wants to make more off their Hawks broadcasts.

It's the best chance WGN and Chicago is going to have to build their fanbase. Young stars. Stanley Cup. Against a team with a rabid fan base like Philadelphia has. National TV. This is Chicago's big chance to make the Hawks a huge money maker. WGN sees it.

I've got tons of friends back home in Chicago who have suddenly become Hawks fans. Friends of mine who claim hockey is more important to them than baseball now. WGN has a chance to build a fan base here. Most die-hard fans start off as bandwagon fans, if you think about it, anyways.

It's on National TV, which is what makes this a moot point. However, is it really better to put the Cubs, who have a ton of out of market fans, on the alternate channels(which often can't be viewed out of market), for the sake of the Hawks? If people actually care, won't they find them anyway?

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 01:25 PM
is it that hard to change the dial over to 560am on 2.. maybe up to 4 nights..

give me a ****ing break. I'm a diehard Cubs fan and a longtime (since the 90's) Hawks fan.

The Hawks deserve their time in the sun. If you guys don't like it.. Too bad..

Grow a pair for a few nights of your life.

Couldn't you say the Hockey fans should have to do that since they're in the minority?

CUBDOM4life
05-26-2010, 01:27 PM
This is actually a pretty legitimate argument: suffering a bit now in terms of advertising revenue in hopes to increase future revenue. At least it's based in logic. As opposed to people saying "Dude, it's the Stanley Cup! It's more important than a Cubs regular season game."....which, obviously, is mentally challengable.

Basically what I was implying with the whole "beginning and growing of a fanbase" thing.

To be totally honest, I you try to please certain posters on this board.

1908_Cubs
05-26-2010, 01:30 PM
It's on National TV, which is what makes this a moot point. However, is it really better to put the Cubs, who have a ton of out of market fans, on the alternate channels(which often can't be viewed out of market), for the sake of the Hawks? If people actually care, won't they find them anyway?

And this is why the Cubs are on alternate channels. More people care about the Cubs, thus, more people will read about the change, thus, more of the percentage will tune into the alternate channels. You can do anything you want to the Cubs fanbase, they're rock solid, they don't leave. The Hawks fanbase is still on shaky foundation. You have to keep everything normal for them. It'd be silly to take the one group you are trying to build and **** with it, while catering to the group you know that you can do essentially anything to for 3 days and they'll still be there. You piss off a fickle fan base by putting on, what they'll see, as a losing baseball franchise for the 4 most important games the Hawks have played in nearly 40 years? They'll get pissed off at WGN.

This is 100% the right move by WGN. You cater to the fickle and **** with the strong. And you're still missing the point that WGN is obviously sacrificing a little now to make more later by building this Hawks fan base.

Not to mention, I live in Kentucky and I don't get a whiff of WGN down here 98% of the time. Not to mention most out of market fans, get the TV packages as opposed to trying to tune into WGN radio and the sometimes unreliability of radio waves.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:30 PM
is it that hard to change the dial over to 560am on 2.. maybe up to 4 nights..

give me a ****ing break. I'm a diehard Cubs fan and a longtime (since the 90's) Hawks fan.

The Hawks deserve their time in the sun. If you guys don't like it.. Too bad..

Grow a pair for a few nights of your life.

Maybe the actual team does, but the fans don't. Not 99% that just jumped on or jumped back on in 2007 at least. Because I hate the ****ing argument that Hawks fans are suffering when there was a 10 year stretch when no one gave one iota of a **** about them. So there was no suffering going on during the 2001 NHL season because there was no one who cared enough to suffer.

People make the argument that Bill Wirtz is the problem, but whether or not you think he's the devil, the point is there was no uproar about everything. People just accepted it. If the Cubs or Bears or Bulls were taken off TV, people would literally be murdered. Hawks fans feel they are entitled to their team being covered/talked about/loved more than every other when they've done nothing to prove that should be the case.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 01:30 PM
Couldn't you say the Hockey fans should have to do that since they're in the minority?

Ive been doing it for quite awhile on Cubs/Hawks nights.. I haven't complained one bit.

Heaven forbid they change it for a Championship series. I know some Cub fans don't understand what that means.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:34 PM
Basically what I was implying with the whole "beginning and growing of a fanbase" thing.

To be totally honest, I you try to please certain posters on this board.

Who am I trying to please? Everyone on this board other than Jilly disagrees with me? Trust me, as far as Cubs fans go, I like you guys a lot. But as far as Hawks fans goes, I can't stand everyone on this board. No pleasing necessary.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:36 PM
Ive been doing it for quite awhile on Cubs/Hawks nights.. I haven't complained one bit.

Heaven forbid they change it for a Championship series. I know some Cub fans don't understand what that means.

I'll tell you one thing, 590 AM is going to probably have their best ratings ever. Lucky guys.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 01:37 PM
Maybe the actual team does, but the fans don't. Not 99% that just jumped on or jumped back on in 2007 at least. Because I hate the ****ing argument that Hawks fans are suffering when there was a 10 year stretch when no one gave one iota of a **** about them. So there was no suffering going on during the 2001 NHL season because there was no one who cared enough to suffer.

People make the argument that Bill Wirtz is the problem, but whether or not you think he's the devil, the point is there was no uproar about everything. People just accepted it. If the Cubs or Bears or Bulls were taken off TV, people would literally be murdered. Hawks fans feel they are entitled to their team being covered/talked about/loved more than every other when they've done nothing to prove that should be the case.

Cubs on WGN for 50+ years = a shitload of fans.

It all has to start somewhere. Wirtz was the issue. For years and years it either had to be an away game or a national broad casted game for the Hawks to be on TV. Most real Hawks fans *****ed and complained about it all the time. It was never "oh well, we just aren't on tv".

So now in the 2000's when Rocky takes over. Proves he has a brain. Put's all the Hawks games on TV. The team is good. Naturally its going to grow.

Like several have said before.. No **** there are gonna be band wagoners. You know what though.. The ones that are gonna stay Hawks fans the rest of their life.. Who can blame them? Weren't on TV.. For a long time they were decent. Then piss terrible.. Then a year of hockey gets canceled.

So for some of the new Hawks fans.. I'm gonna defend them.

CUBDOM4life
05-26-2010, 01:40 PM
Shutting out more fans? Yes. However you build far less fans blacking out the Hawks and going with the Cubs games on those days. Cubs fan base isn't in need of a build. The Hawks are. Hockey is. All of which means: money. WGN wants to make more off their Hawks broadcasts.

It's the best chance WGN and Chicago is going to have to build their fanbase. Young stars. Stanley Cup. Against a team with a rabid fan base like Philadelphia has. National TV. This is Chicago's big chance to make the Hawks a huge money maker. WGN sees it.

I've got tons of friends back home in Chicago who have suddenly become Hawks fans. Friends of mine who claim hockey is more important to them than baseball now. WGN has a chance to build a fan base here. Most die-hard fans start off as bandwagon fans, if you think about it, anyways.


This is actually a pretty legitimate argument: suffering a bit now in terms of advertising revenue in hopes to increase future revenue. At least it's based in logic. As opposed to people saying "Dude, it's the Stanley Cup! It's more important than a Cubs regular season game."....which, obviously, is mentally challengable.


Who am I trying to please? Everyone on this board other than Jilly disagrees with me? Trust me, as far as Cubs fans go, I like you guys a lot. But as far as Hawks fans goes, I can't stand everyone on this board. No pleasing necessary.

What I meant was, if I or CNM would have said the same exact thing that 1908 said, I think you would have come back with another "but they're all bandwagoners" ignorant response rather than the "this is actually pretty legit..." response.

The Cubs are also still my #1 team, I don't know why, but sadly they are. But when an exciting, young, and growing fanbase is atempting to bring a championship to Chicago I must put them first for right now.

I started out as a "bandwagon" fan in '08 when they came back to tv. Now I consider myself a diehard. This is the process of how most franchise's grow (excluding NFL).

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:42 PM
What I meant was, if I or CNM would have said the same exact thing that 1908 said, I think you would have come back with another "but they're all bandwagoners" ignorant response rather than the "this is actually pretty legit..." response.

The Cubs are also still my #1 team, I don't know why, but sadly they are. But when an exciting, young, and growing fanbase is atempting to bring a championship to Chicago I must put them first for right now.

Haha trust me it took all I had to ever say that 1908 made a good point. The truth is, he made a logical point. No offense, but I don't think you guys did to that point.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 01:42 PM
And this is why the Cubs are on alternate channels. More people care about the Cubs, thus, more people will read about the change, thus, more of the percentage will tune into the alternate channels. You can do anything you want to the Cubs fanbase, they're rock solid, they don't leave. The Hawks fanbase is still on shaky foundation. You have to keep everything normal for them. It'd be silly to take the one group you are trying to build and **** with it, while catering to the group you know that you can do essentially anything to for 3 days and they'll still be there. You piss off a fickle fan base by putting on, what they'll see, as a losing baseball franchise for the 4 most important games the Hawks have played in nearly 40 years? They'll get pissed off at WGN.

This is 100% the right move by WGN. You cater to the fickle and **** with the strong. And you're still missing the point that WGN is obviously sacrificing a little now to make more later by building this Hawks fan base.

Not to mention, I live in Kentucky and I don't get a whiff of WGN down here 98% of the time. Not to mention most out of market fans, get the TV packages as opposed to trying to tune into WGN radio and the sometimes unreliability of radio waves.

Fair enough, these are legit good points. Although one thing is that when the Cubs are put on an alternate channel, WCIU, and CSN+, or the very rare occasion where something's on WGN and not WGN america, it can be impossible to see depending on your cable provider. They won't show up on the cable package, and you can't use stuff like EI and MLB.tv since you're still in market. So I mean while I might buy the **** with hte majority thing, you're also making it so they physically can't watch certain games. And I know if you put the HOckey games on that channel you're doing that to them, but on the other hand the Hawks fans are the ones more likely to be in the city/suburbs.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 01:46 PM
Haha trust me it took all I had to ever say that 1908 made a good point. The truth is, he made a logical point. No offense, but I don't think you guys did to that point.

Don't know what your reading.. My points have pretty much furthered 1908's point on expanding the Hawks fanbase.

From fragile to growth.

CUBDOM4life
05-26-2010, 01:47 PM
Maybe the actual team does, but the fans don't. Not 99% that just jumped on or jumped back on in 2007 at least. Because I hate the ****ing argument that Hawks fans are suffering when there was a 10 year stretch when no one gave one iota of a **** about them. So there was no suffering going on during the 2001 NHL season because there was no one who cared enough to suffer.

People make the argument that Bill Wirtz is the problem, but whether or not you think he's the devil, the point is there was no uproar about everything. People just accepted it. If the Cubs or Bears or Bulls were taken off TV, people would literally be murdered. Hawks fans feel they are entitled to their team being covered/talked about/loved more than every other when they've done nothing to prove that should be the case.

You're right there wasn't an uproar. That doesn't mean there wasn't a large number of people who weren't bothered by it.

My dad and grandpa have been diehard fans their whole life. I use to listen to them ***** and moan about some "son of a *****" named Bill Wirtz, but I was young and didn't know who that was.

This is a biased perspective of mine, but yeah, in my eyes people did care.

Matchstckman
05-26-2010, 01:47 PM
One last thing and then I have to go to work: I think it's easy to look to the past through rose-colored glasses and think of yourselves as martyrs for surviving the downturn of the Hawks and coming out as some sort of truer fans because of it. I just don't think that's how it happened. I think people cared, then stopped caring, then cared again. Or never cared in the first place. Sure, a lot of people were very upset, but I think a vast majority just shrugged and moved on.

That being said, I wish you Hawks fans the best because I have no reason to wish unhappiness on someone. But I definitely can't wait for the NHL season to be over.

gocubs2118
05-26-2010, 01:49 PM
Because unlike the Cubs fanbase, the Hawks fanbase is 99% bandwagon since only 217 people cared about them before 2007.

Eh, after 2003 it seems like there were a lot more bandwagon Cubs fans. Before then, you could pretty much get a Cubs ticket whenever you wanted to.

Ron!n
05-26-2010, 01:57 PM
Ive been doing it for quite awhile on Cubs/Hawks nights.. I haven't complained one bit.

Heaven forbid they change it for a Championship series. I know some Cub fans don't understand what that means.

Thats a pretty funny statement coming from a Cubs fan...

Str1fe5
05-26-2010, 02:27 PM
You're still shutting out more real fans by shutting out the Cubs game.

What don't you get about this? It's Championship sports. The fans that care enough to listen to hockey on the radio that are both out of range of the 560 station (which I'm guessing would be the alternative) and can't see the game on TV aren't going to be fair weather fans, at all. They are going to be displace die hard fans. Just like Cubs fans. If you care enough to listen in on the radio in anything other than your car and you're not in the local area, you are a die hard fan. So this whole discussion about "real" fans is misplaced. And yes, there are more net displaced die hard Cubs fans than Hawks fans. But that's not the point either. The point is being able to make sure the die hard fans can follow their team in a championship game as much as possible. And when its a championship game, that takes precedence over a regular season game, it just does. The hawks may not have as good a shot as this for a very long time. The die hard fans that can't see it on TV or live close enough to hear it on a more local radio station deserve to be able to follow their team, more than those same fans deserve to watch a regular season game of any other sport.

I'd make the same case for the Fire or Northwestern/DePaul/Loyola/UofI sports, too, if they got as far as an NCAA or hell, even an NIT final 4.

I think its also a bit arrogant to assume we know more about what is likely to make more money for the station than the actual people whose job it is to figure those things out. I guarantee you that clause was put in the contract to make more money for the radio station in one form or another.

That, and 1908's point about building a bigger fan base. You can say that hockey is a 2nd tier sport, and that's fine. But hockey has gotten more popular over the last 5 years post lock out than it was in the 5 years preceding the lock out, and it most certainly was not a 2nd tier sport in the 70's, 80,'s and early to mid 90's. Especially in Chicago, where for a solid generation the Blackhawks were much more popular than either the White Sox or the Chicago Cubs. If you don't believe me, look how quickly the hawks went from bottom of the rung in terms NHL revenue to having as much financial dominance over the reset of the NHL as the Yankees and Red Sox do. Its hockey, its all predicated on ticket sales. The UC is the biggest arena in the NHL, and they've sold out every game for the last 2 years in THIS economy.

So yeah, for 4 games at most, the .500 Cubs can take a back seat in the dog days of their season so a local team can be broadcast to a larger area during its championship run, because die hard Hawks fans in Iowa deserve to listen to their team try to win a championship more than die hard Cubs fans in Iowa deserve to listen to their team play regular season baseball, and by focusing that much more attention on the hawks both locally and nationally, WGN raises the interest level in another local sports team for the future.

It's just the right call. And all of that logic applies to if the Stanley Cup Finals were being broadcast on Comcast instead of NBC. The Cubs can go on CSN+ or CLTV for 4 games. The SC Finals are at least as important as an episode of Smallville, for Christ's sakes.

Str1fe5
05-26-2010, 02:31 PM
Fair enough, these are legit good points. Although one thing is that when the Cubs are put on an alternate channel, WCIU, and CSN+, or the very rare occasion where something's on WGN and not WGN america, it can be impossible to see depending on your cable provider. They won't show up on the cable package, and you can't use stuff like EI and MLB.tv since you're still in market. So I mean while I might buy the **** with hte majority thing, you're also making it so they physically can't watch certain games. And I know if you put the HOckey games on that channel you're doing that to them, but on the other hand the Hawks fans are the ones more likely to be in the city/suburbs.

Yeah, but there is still the point that no matter how die hard a Cub fan you are, it still matters a lot less to get screwed over from being able to watch / listen to a random regular season game or two vs. being a die hard Hawk fan and getting screwed out of watching your team fight for a championship. Even if there are 100 Cub fans for ever 1 hawk fan.

giventofly
05-26-2010, 02:40 PM
Because unlike the Cubs fanbase, the Hawks fanbase is 99% bandwagon since only 217 people cared about them before 2007.
Ah, yes, great point...:rolleyes:

It's not like the Cubs fanbase exploded after 1998 or 2003 or anything. At the time, those people were bandwagon fans. And now they are probably the majority of the people that make up the very same fanbase whose right you are defending to listen to a regular season game over a championship game because 'Cubs fans are more dedicated'.

Give me a break.

Not only is this a perfectly logical business move, which you have already acknowledged, but this would be the right move if the fanbases were of equal size as well. I think you just like to unnecessarily complain about things for the sake of complaining...spilled milk, if you will. Sit back, maybe try to be entertained by these superstars, and enjoy the championship that these guys are about to bring home to Chicago.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 02:42 PM
What don't you get about this? It's Championship sports. The fans that care enough to listen to hockey on the radio that are both out of range of the 560 station (which I'm guessing would be the alternative) and can't see the game on TV aren't going to be fair weather fans, at all. They are going to be displace die hard fans. Just like Cubs fans. If you care enough to listen in on the radio in anything other than your car and you're not in the local area, you are a die hard fan. So this whole discussion about "real" fans is misplaced. And yes, there are more net displaced die hard Cubs fans than Hawks fans. But that's not the point either. The point is being able to make sure the die hard fans can follow their team in a championship game as much as possible. And when its a championship game, that takes precedence over a regular season game, it just does. The hawks may not have as good a shot as this for a very long time. The die hard fans that can't see it on TV or live close enough to hear it on a more local radio station deserve to be able to follow their team, more than those same fans deserve to watch a regular season game of any other sport.

I'd make the same case for the Fire or Northwestern/DePaul/Loyola/UofI sports, too, if they got as far as an NCAA or hell, even an NIT final 4.

I think its also a bit arrogant to assume we know more about what is likely to make more money for the station than the actual people whose job it is to figure those things out. I guarantee you that clause was put in the contract to make more money for the radio station in one form or another.

That, and 1908's point about building a bigger fan base. You can say that hockey is a 2nd tier sport, and that's fine. But hockey has gotten more popular over the last 5 years post lock out than it was in the 5 years preceding the lock out, and it most certainly was not a 2nd tier sport in the 70's, 80,'s and early to mid 90's. Especially in Chicago, where for a solid generation the Blackhawks were much more popular than either the White Sox or the Chicago Cubs. If you don't believe me, look how quickly the hawks went from bottom of the rung in terms NHL revenue to having as much financial dominance over the reset of the NHL as the Yankees and Red Sox do. Its hockey, its all predicated on ticket sales. The UC is the biggest arena in the NHL, and they've sold out every game for the last 2 years in THIS economy.

So yeah, for 4 games at most, the .500 Cubs can take a back seat in the dog days of their season so a local team can be broadcast to a larger area during its championship run, because die hard Hawks fans in Iowa deserve to listen to their team try to win a championship more than die hard Cubs fans in Iowa deserve to listen to their team play regular season baseball, and by focusing that much more attention on the hawks both locally and nationally, WGN raises the interest level in another local sports team for the future.

It's just the right call. And all of that logic applies to if the Stanley Cup Finals were being broadcast on Comcast instead of NBC. The Cubs can go on CSN+ or CLTV for 4 games. The SC Finals are at least as important as an episode of Smallville, for Christ's sakes.

It's second tier sports. I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your Championship>All thing. No one gives a **** about Soccer or the WNBA or any of that **** except the players and their families. Hockey's not nearly that far down on the totem pole but it IS down on the totem pole. There's a reason that pre-Olympics it was rare to find Hockey on a non-Versus network, because before that no one gave a crap. Now more people care, but it's still a significant minority. It shouldn't preempt one of the most popular teams in the most popular sport in the country. Now it doesn't, because it's on NBC(which means it'll probably get less ratings than Versus:D), so this is all a moot point. But still, it's Hockey. There's a reason they just had a lockout. There's a reason most of the nationally televised games are on a network that no one else except MMA fans have heard of. That's because it's far far behind the NFL, MLB, and NBA in terms of popularity. And yeah, growing the fanbase is all fine and good, but if it makes it so I can't watch my team, which actually makes money, then that's bullcrap.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 02:46 PM
Yeah, but there is still the point that no matter how die hard a Cub fan you are, it still matters a lot less to get screwed over from being able to watch / listen to a random regular season game or two vs. being a die hard Hawk fan and getting screwed out of watching your team fight for a championship. Even if there are 100 Cub fans for ever 1 hawk fan.

Not really. I didn't get to see Carlos Zambrano's no hitter. You know why? Because it aired on WGN, but not WGN America due to some conflict(don't remember what). That is probably the second best Cubs game of the past 5 years, and I missed it, and there was literally NOTHING I could do about it. And with my old cable company, it was impossible to legally watch Cubs games on WCIU or CSN+(it's still the case with WCIU). Every night in baseball there's a chance at something special. And if I have to miss the next great thing like Z's no hitter because some douchebags who probably pronounce Toews like Toes, I have every right to be pissed.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 02:50 PM
Thats a pretty funny statement coming from a Cubs fan...

Unfortunately for some.. Its true.

cubsneedmiracle
05-26-2010, 02:52 PM
Not really. I didn't get to see Carlos Zambrano's no hitter. You know why? Because it aired on WGN, but not WGN America due to some conflict(don't remember what). That is probably the second best Cubs game of the past 5 years, and I missed it, and there was literally NOTHING I could do about it. And with my old cable company, it was impossible to legally watch Cubs games on WCIU or CSN+(it's still the case with WCIU). Every night in baseball there's a chance at something special. And if I have to miss the next great thing like Z's no hitter because some douchebags who probably pronounce Toews like Toes, I have every right to be pissed.

As we have every right to be pissed if we miss something in a championship. Cause you never know.. It may only happen once in our lifetime.

I think we can leave this discussion at that.. Some of us disagree.

gocubs2118
05-26-2010, 02:55 PM
Not really. I didn't get to see Carlos Zambrano's no hitter. You know why? Because it aired on WGN, but not WGN America due to some conflict(don't remember what). That is probably the second best Cubs game of the past 5 years, and I missed it, and there was literally NOTHING I could do about it. And with my old cable company, it was impossible to legally watch Cubs games on WCIU or CSN+(it's still the case with WCIU). Every night in baseball there's a chance at something special. And if I have to miss the next great thing like Z's no hitter because some douchebags who probably pronounce Toews like Toes, I have every right to be pissed.

I know plenty of Cubs fans who don't know one player on team. There are those kind of bandwagon fans for every sport of every team.

jiggin
05-26-2010, 02:57 PM
they should broadcast the blackhawks over the cubs...its a no brainer.

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 04:05 PM
I know plenty of Cubs fans who don't know one player on team. There are those kind of bandwagon fans for every sport of every team.

Obviously

WCF23
05-26-2010, 04:14 PM
I have my MBA in Sport Management and have spent the last 2 and a half years working in the front office of an NHL team. The idea that WGN, or the Blackhawks who are going to facilitate sponsorship dollars through WGN, would let a regular season game take precedence over the Stanley Cup Finals is an absolute ****ing joke. That would be the worst business move on earth. Regardless of how many Cubs fans are crying.

The bandwagon thing is about as big a joke because, as was mentioned, everyone jumped on board with the Cubs during 1998 or 2003 for the most part anyway. Yes more Cubs fans are born into a "Cubs family" than a "Hawks family," but if the Hawks win and the Cubs continue to lose watch how that changes. Like it or not, fans want to see teams win so they can talk **** at the water cooler. Detroit became hockey town because the Red Wings won, Chicago could be the same way. 1908 bringing up building a fanbase is 100% spot on, thats business savvy and has nothing to do with being a fan.

This high and mighty, oh we are Cubs fans appraoch, doesn't translate to the real world of economics. Down playing the oldest, and most prestiges trophy in sports, may make you feel better, but the reality of the situation is that playoff hockey sells. The NHL, as a league, has more financial success in North America than the NBA.

Also, the Blackhawks turned their back on the fanbase in the late 90s and early 2000s and not the other way around. I remember watching Hawks practice in Bensonville when I played for the Chill and Eric Daze was the highlight of the hour. I also sat in the bleachers at Wrigley with my parents in the mid 90s when they were the laughing stock of the division. I would say there were probably more people going to Hawks games at that time than Cubs games. JR, Bernie Nicholls, Daze, Savard, Chelios, Eagle, the Hawks were a way better team at that time than the Cubs.

I understand I am not like everyone, I played hockey in college, I watch hockey live 40+ times a year, and to be honest its something I was born into, but don't take away the Chicago Blackhawks being in the Stanley Cup, regardless of how many people jump on board. Because when the Cubs reach the mountain top, far more people will jump on board that wagon, but that doesn't take anything away from the fans that have been there and lived and died over every pitch since the very begining.

The Cubs are a sub .500 team and the Blackhawks are in the Stanley Cup. Its really not rocket science. Not to mention, the Blackhawks have the number one attendance in the NHL and the Flyers have a ridiculous following, its probably going to be one of the highest rated Stanley Cups of all time. So back to that business sense again, WGN has to do what is best for them, and that isn't the Cubs game.

Str1fe5
05-26-2010, 04:46 PM
It's second tier sports. I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your Championship>All thing. No one gives a **** about Soccer or the WNBA or any of that **** except the players and their families. Hockey's not nearly that far down on the totem pole but it IS down on the totem pole. There's a reason that pre-Olympics it was rare to find Hockey on a non-Versus network, because before that no one gave a crap. Now more people care, but it's still a significant minority. It shouldn't preempt one of the most popular teams in the most popular sport in the country. Now it doesn't, because it's on NBC(which means it'll probably get less ratings than Versus:D), so this is all a moot point. But still, it's Hockey. There's a reason they just had a lockout. There's a reason most of the nationally televised games are on a network that no one else except MMA fans have heard of. That's because it's far far behind the NFL, MLB, and NBA in terms of popularity. And yeah, growing the fanbase is all fine and good, but if it makes it so I can't watch my team, which actually makes money, then that's bullcrap.

1) Just because baseball is a more popular sport than hockey does not mean that a regular season baseball game is more popular than the Stanley Cup Finals, at least not on its face. There are 2,430 games in a regular baseball season. There are at most 7 games in the Stanley Cup Finals. I don't know how many casual fans tune into the radio to listen to hockey vs. baseball, but I'm willing to bet that there are more fans willing to watch the Stanley Cup Finals than a random Cubs baseball game in late May nationwide, regardless of loyalty. Its just more unique, and more is at stake. So yes, while there are lot more baseball fans than hockey fans, I don't think its proof positive that a series of regular season baseball for one team is more popular than the Stanley Cup Finals in general.

2) It's quite presumptive to think that if WGN (or Comcast) decided to broadcast a regular season Cubs game that the station would make more money that way. You don't know what the bidding looks like on ad revenue, you don't know how much money was saved/gained by putting the clause into their media contracts with the two teams. Perhaps the Hawks were willing to pay more / get paid less if they were assured that they would get priority over regular season sports in the event that they made the Finals. In fact that was likely the case. And when you are in that position and you run the risk/reward calculations it becomes pretty clear that saving money over the life of a contract is worth the risk of *potentially* losing ad revenue for 1/2 to 2 weeks at a time, considering there is a much higher probability that the issue would never come up and you'd still make money on the deal. When you take that into consideration with the very real opportunity to expand the market and profit margins in a new area in the present / future, you can the likelihood that the network(s) made money on this type of arrangement rather than lost money on it. And that's assuming that the ratings would be higher watching a local .500 baseball team play in a regular season baseball game vs a championship caliber local hockey team play in a Stanley Cup Finals.


Not really. I didn't get to see Carlos Zambrano's no hitter. You know why? Because it aired on WGN, but not WGN America due to some conflict(don't remember what). That is probably the second best Cubs game of the past 5 years, and I missed it, and there was literally NOTHING I could do about it. And with my old cable company, it was impossible to legally watch Cubs games on WCIU or CSN+(it's still the case with WCIU). Every night in baseball there's a chance at something special. And if I have to miss the next great thing like Z's no hitter because some douchebags who probably pronounce Toews like Toes, I have every right to be pissed.

You're assuming that there is a sizable difference between the % of Hawks fans that are douches and the % of Cubs fans that are douches. I'm not convinced of that at all. There are a LOT of douche bag Cubs fans that have no idea what is going on.

But that's not really the point, either. You seem to be making two main points:

1) That there are more Cubs fans than Hawks fans nationwide and therefore the Cubs should get more nationwide broadcasts on both radio / television, even in a Finals / Regular season situation.

2) You are a die hard Cubs fan, and there are more die hard Cubs fans like you that cannot watch / listen to every single Cubs game than there are total die hard Hawks fans that cannot watch / listen to every single Hawks Finals game, and so therefore the die hard Hawks fans should get screwed instead of you.

To the first, while that might be the case in the aggregate, I think that you are ignoring how a Finals appearance creates more casual interest and thus a pretty big boost in the size of the audience, which brings those numbers close to what the displaced Cubs fans look like.

To the second, I just can't buy your argument that a greater number of die hard fans getting to watch something they get to see all the time should trump the die hard fans who might never get to watch a something again. Sure, there's the chance that something special might happen in a regular season baseball game, but there is just as great a chance as something special happening in a Finals game - except it would be so much more special because it would be in the Finals - less likely to happen in that context given how many fewer games are played in the Finals, and having a much greater impact on the overall success of the team in achieving the ultimate goal of every team in every sport - winning championships. If the goalie goes berserk and sets a record for Saves in a game in a shutout, that just means more than a no-no during the regular season.

Bottom line, this is the right decision for several reasons. And like I said before, it would be the right decision for TV even if the Finals were broadcast on Comcast.

Max Power
05-26-2010, 04:55 PM
I am not a hockey fan, but this is absolutely the right thing to do.

But to those saying WGN is doing it to build the Hawks base, that isn't entirely correct. WGN will be happy with the outcome, but it wasn't their decision. The Cubs had to give the OK to let WGN do it, which would have been a PR disaster if they didn't. They probably should have been doing it for the entire playoffs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-100525-rosenthal-blackhawks,0,4185441.column

Jilly Bohnson
05-26-2010, 05:29 PM
1) Just because baseball is a more popular sport than hockey does not mean that a regular season baseball game is more popular than the Stanley Cup Finals, at least not on its face. There are 2,430 games in a regular baseball season. There are at most 7 games in the Stanley Cup Finals. I don't know how many casual fans tune into the radio to listen to hockey vs. baseball, but I'm willing to bet that there are more fans willing to watch the Stanley Cup Finals than a random Cubs baseball game in late May nationwide, regardless of loyalty. Its just more unique, and more is at stake. So yes, while there are lot more baseball fans than hockey fans, I don't think its proof positive that a series of regular season baseball for one team is more popular than the Stanley Cup Finals in general.

2) It's quite presumptive to think that if WGN (or Comcast) decided to broadcast a regular season Cubs game that the station would make more money that way. You don't know what the bidding looks like on ad revenue, you don't know how much money was saved/gained by putting the clause into their media contracts with the two teams. Perhaps the Hawks were willing to pay more / get paid less if they were assured that they would get priority over regular season sports in the event that they made the Finals. In fact that was likely the case. And when you are in that position and you run the risk/reward calculations it becomes pretty clear that saving money over the life of a contract is worth the risk of *potentially* losing ad revenue for 1/2 to 2 weeks at a time, considering there is a much higher probability that the issue would never come up and you'd still make money on the deal. When you take that into consideration with the very real opportunity to expand the market and profit margins in a new area in the present / future, you can the likelihood that the network(s) made money on this type of arrangement rather than lost money on it. And that's assuming that the ratings would be higher watching a local .500 baseball team play in a regular season baseball game vs a championship caliber local hockey team play in a Stanley Cup Finals.



You're assuming that there is a sizable difference between the % of Hawks fans that are douches and the % of Cubs fans that are douches. I'm not convinced of that at all. There are a LOT of douche bag Cubs fans that have no idea what is going on.

But that's not really the point, either. You seem to be making two main points:

1) That there are more Cubs fans than Hawks fans nationwide and therefore the Cubs should get more nationwide broadcasts on both radio / television, even in a Finals / Regular season situation.

2) You are a die hard Cubs fan, and there are more die hard Cubs fans like you that cannot watch / listen to every single Cubs game than there are total die hard Hawks fans that cannot watch / listen to every single Hawks Finals game, and so therefore the die hard Hawks fans should get screwed instead of you.

To the first, while that might be the case in the aggregate, I think that you are ignoring how a Finals appearance creates more casual interest and thus a pretty big boost in the size of the audience, which brings those numbers close to what the displaced Cubs fans look like.

To the second, I just can't buy your argument that a greater number of die hard fans getting to watch something they get to see all the time should trump the die hard fans who might never get to watch a something again. Sure, there's the chance that something special might happen in a regular season baseball game, but there is just as great a chance as something special happening in a Finals game - except it would be so much more special because it would be in the Finals - less likely to happen in that context given how many fewer games are played in the Finals, and having a much greater impact on the overall success of the team in achieving the ultimate goal of every team in every sport - winning championships. If the goalie goes berserk and sets a record for Saves in a game in a shutout, that just means more than a no-no during the regular season.

Bottom line, this is the right decision for several reasons. And like I said before, it would be the right decision for TV even if the Finals were broadcast on Comcast.

I'll be honest, I don't really care to read this wall of text. The fact of the matter is the NHL has a fraction of the fans that MLB does. And I shouldn't be inconvenienced for a second tier sport. Is it fair? No, not at all. But that's just how I feel. You're not going to change my mind. Not to mention this is all moot since the finals are on NBC and not CSN or WGN

scrubs101
05-26-2010, 05:58 PM
are people really upset about this?

Get a life, folks.

ChicagoFan4Eva
05-27-2010, 03:19 AM
Stanley cup finals> cubs game
(and i AM a cubs fan)

Matchstckman
05-27-2010, 09:49 AM
Stanley cup finals> cubs game
(and i AM a cubs fan)

MAAAAAAAAAYBE in the whole "importance of the game sense (keyword: maybe), but not in entertainment value. That **** is boring.

BDawk4Prez
05-27-2010, 10:06 AM
But it's hockey? :shrug:

ReJo
05-27-2010, 10:33 AM
It's a tough call. Although the Cubs have been crushing both the Bulls and Blackhawks playoff games in ratings for TV and radio the Stanley Cup finals is a whole other animal. I don't know if it will outdraw the Cubs in the ratings but listenership will be up and WGN can charge more for advertising with it being a championship series. It's all a numbers game.
I really don't care since I watch the Cubs on TV and usually flip back and forth to see how the Hawks are doing. I'm not much of a fan but it would be cool to see a team from Chicago win a championship. But I wouldn't be crushed if they lost either since I hate that dick Patrick Kane for being a complete douche and what he did to that poor cabbie.

hoggin88
05-27-2010, 12:21 PM
MAAAAAAAAAYBE in the whole "importance of the game sense (keyword: maybe), but not in entertainment value. That **** is boring.

You know there are plenty of people out there who think baseball is boring as ****. It's all just an opinion.

packerfan4life
05-27-2010, 12:54 PM
You know there are plenty of people out there who think baseball is boring as ****. It's all just an opinion.

Baseball honestly dropped to my least favorite sport. I would probably watch a hockey game not involving the Blackhawks before I watched a baseball game not involving the Cubs.

StrandedCub
05-27-2010, 01:09 PM
You know there are plenty of people out there who think baseball is boring as ****. It's all just an opinion.

Yeah definitely, but many many more people find hockey to be boring as ****.

hoggin88
05-27-2010, 01:50 PM
Yeah definitely, but many many more people find hockey to be boring as ****.

I don't know. I bet the average person who doesn't follow either sport would probably rather sit through a hockey game than a baseball game. It's faster paced, has more physical contact, and the possibility of fights.

Basically I'm just saying I think hockey games do have good entertainment value for the average person, at least when compared to baseball. I love baseball, but I can see why many don't.

And for the record, I'm not upset with this decision at all. Really I think most Cubs fans will be ok with this. I don't even follow the Blackhawks really but I will undoubtedly be watching them in the Stanley Cup Finals before I will be watching the Cubs play mediocre baseball. Granted, I will be flipping back and forth. :D

giventofly
05-27-2010, 03:40 PM
It's a tough call. Although the Cubs have been crushing both the Bulls and Blackhawks playoff games in ratings for TV and radio the Stanley Cup finals is a whole other animal. I don't know if it will outdraw the Cubs in the ratings but listenership will be up and WGN can charge more for advertising with it being a championship series. It's all a numbers game.
I really don't care since I watch the Cubs on TV and usually flip back and forth to see how the Hawks are doing. I'm not much of a fan but it would be cool to see a team from Chicago win a championship. But I wouldn't be crushed if they lost either since I hate that dick Patrick Kane for being a complete douche and what he did to that poor cabbie.
That poor cabbie decided to lock Kane and his cousin in the car because he thought he wasn't going to get paid. I understand that it's a strategy to make sure you get paid, I just don't agree with locking any person in a car. If that **** happened to me, I would have thought he was trying to murder me and I would have freaked out too...especially if I was already drunk.

Patrick Kane is god.

1908_Cubs
05-27-2010, 03:44 PM
That poor cabbie decided to lock Kane and his cousin in the car because he thought he wasn't going to get paid. I understand that it's a strategy to make sure you get paid, I just don't agree with locking any person in a car. If that **** happened to me, I would have thought he was trying to murder me and I would have freaked out too...especially if I was already drunk.

Patrick Kane is god.

No. Kind of hard being god when the little puss bag can't even grow a proper beard. Mike Richards is God. Chris Pronger is Jesus. And mother ****ing Simon Gagne is Chuck Norris. The three best trump cards. If this were a game of Euchre, the Flyers would already have two points.

BTW, I just learned how to play Euchre last night, thus the reference.

giventofly
05-27-2010, 03:48 PM
No. Kind of hard being god when the little puss bag can't even grow a proper beard. Mike Richards is God. Chris Pronger is Jesus. And mother ****ing Simon Gagne is Chuck Norris. The three best trump cards. If this were a game of Euchre, the Flyers would already have two points.

BTW, I just learned how to play Euchre last night, thus the reference.
Euchre is a great game, but **** you. :up:

Matchstckman
05-27-2010, 05:03 PM
This is such a tough call because I hate the Blackhawks so I want to see Philly win. But I hate 1908, too so I don't want to see him happy. Talk about a catch-22.

Tehjosha
05-27-2010, 05:05 PM
:laugh2:

Str1fe5
05-27-2010, 05:10 PM
This is such a tough call because I hate the Blackhawks so I want to see Philly win. But I hate 1908, too so I don't want to see him happy. Talk about a catch-22.

Why do you hate the blackhawks?

Matchstckman
05-27-2010, 05:22 PM
Why do you hate the blackhawks?

1.) Hockey sucks so much
2.) I hate the fanbase for the many reasons I listed earlier in this thread
3.) Their name/logo is racist
4.) Every girl in Chicago thinks she can be a huge diehard Blackhawks fan for no reason and girls are stupid so therefore the Blackhawks are stupid.
5.) It's the national sport of Canada and Canada is the worst place on earth
6.) Patrick Kane punches cabbies. Leave cabbies alone you douche
7.) Kane has sex with ugly girls in the back of limos (presumably)
8.) Jonathan Toews has a worse Wolverine beard than Mike Fontenot
9.) Their owner is named Rocky
10.) They took away my Cubs games from the radio

Really only 1 & 2 matter but the rest are all valid as well.

Dmac
05-27-2010, 06:01 PM
1.) Hockey sucks so much
2.) I hate the fanbase for the many reasons I listed earlier in this thread
3.) Their name/logo is racist
4.) Every girl in Chicago thinks she can be a huge diehard Blackhawks fan for no reason and girls are stupid so therefore the Blackhawks are stupid.
5.) It's the national sport of Canada and Canada is the worst place on earth
6.) Patrick Kane punches cabbies. Leave cabbies alone you douche
7.) Kane has sex with ugly girls in the back of limos (presumably)
8.) Jonathan Toews has a worse Wolverine beard than Mike Fontenot
9.) Their owner is named Rocky
10.) They took away my Cubs games from the radio

Really only 1 & 2 matter but the rest are all valid as well.

I agree with most of what you just said, but I don't know how you can say the name and logo is racist. It is far from it. It is probably the only indian reference that isn't. It honors indians, and doesn't show them in a negative light at all. They don't have some stupid mascot like Chief Knockahomer dancing around doing rain dances, and they don't have some stupid indian chant. I'm not a Blackhawks fan, but no way is it racist.

Acronym
05-27-2010, 06:12 PM
And it's not preempting the Cubs on TV, so there's no issue. Strife threw out a hypothetical scenario, and I threw out that that scenario would be horsecrap. This hockey fan nonsense is ridiculous, I feel like I know more about it from the dozen or so games of NHL 10 I've played then most of the guys who come into the bar all decked out in their Toews jerseys.

I know there's real fans out there, particularly on here(because obviously a message board devoted to sports will have more legit fans), but most of the people following the Hawks right now couldn't have named you anyone besides Kane or Toews two months ago. If they were to pre-empt the Cubs for that it would be crap.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed.

giventofly
05-27-2010, 07:12 PM
1.) Hockey sucks so much
2.) I hate the fanbase for the many reasons I listed earlier in this thread
3.) Their name/logo is racist
4.) Every girl in Chicago thinks she can be a huge diehard Blackhawks fan for no reason and girls are stupid so therefore the Blackhawks are stupid.
5.) It's the national sport of Canada and Canada is the worst place on earth
6.) Patrick Kane punches cabbies. Leave cabbies alone you douche
7.) Kane has sex with ugly girls in the back of limos (presumably)
8.) Jonathan Toews has a worse Wolverine beard than Mike Fontenot
9.) Their owner is named Rocky
10.) They took away my Cubs games from the radio

Really only 1 & 2 matter but the rest are all valid as well.
Your analysis and justification of hating this fanbase is really becoming a joke. I expected more from an intelligent person like yourself.

Matchstckman
05-27-2010, 07:25 PM
Your analysis and justification of hating this fanbase is really becoming a joke. I expected more from an intelligent person like yourself.

No, you're right. Girls are smart, reasonable human beings.

ReJo
05-27-2010, 07:52 PM
Have you seen all the people wearing Blackhawks jerseys to the Cubs games?
Did they forget where they were going when they left the house?
I attend a lot of sporting events other than Cubs games and not once have I even thought about wearing my Cubs jersey to a Bulls or Bears game nor do I see anyone else in Cubs gear at those games.

giventofly
05-27-2010, 08:54 PM
No, you're right. Girls are smart, reasonable human beings.
:laugh2: