Fan Fare

Fan Fare

By Frankie O
CSNChicago.com

I am a sports fan.

A HUGE sports fan!

Anyone reading for any part of the 6 years here already knows this. My psychosis is on full display for all to see. But that doesnt mean that in my fervor that I am unaware of the part I play in the process. I am an observer. And, I am a source of revenue for the teams and leagues I follow. That is why I am bombarded with garish signage, internet offers and commercials as a reward for my visits to a stadium or arena and in my near constant TV viewership of athletic endeavors. Its a badge of honor that I have watched over 500,000 Anheuser Busch commercials in my lifetime. (I wont even mention the Viagra and Cialis commercials that seem to dominate national broadcasts these days, but that number is growing rapidly every day!) It comes as part of the price to enjoy the ultimate reality shows of our times.

For as much as sports exist to entertain, like any other business their continued existence is dependent on their ability to turn a profit.

They say its a game, but its really a business. And, as we all know, business is business. This leads to plenty of off-field drama and reality shows. It also makes a fan think.

The two areas I find interesting are:

1) Who is responsible for a franchises financial viability?
2) What responsibilities exist in the team-fan relationship?

Of course financial viability should be the responsibility of those running the franchise, right? I mean they put up the cash for the right to own. The main focus then must be to understand your target consumer and to give them what they want in the quantities that they desire. Im a believer here of the more you win, the more you make. Thats simple enough. Its the bottom rung of the competitive hierarchy that seems to have the most money problems, isnt it? That would make sense. They then have the choices to make in their fight for survival in this win-or-else world we live in. Sometimes though, as time has gone on, we have had the unique opportunity of being sold on the civic pride angle of having a professional sports franchise in our midst, no matter the scope of their on-field miscues. Whatever! I bring this up again of course in lieu of the Cubs latest grab for IllinoisChicago public funds. I know the headlines said that the Cubs were going to use their own money, but lets be real here. Someone is going to pay. Who might that be? Well, first of all, I would think the neighborhood might have to make a donation and that is in addition to what they have already donated to their local alderman to protect their interests.

To be honest, Ive never really had a problem with this, although I would also agree that the neighborhood should have some say on what occurs there. But ultimately, the Cubs have made everyone in that neighborhood a lot of cash and my guess here is that everyone in that neighborhood knew the franchise was right next door when the bought their property or opened their business. I would think the Cubs are well within their rights to get their payments from rooftop owners since those owners make a ton of cash directly from selling an experience related to someone elses business. But when you want to start shutting down public streets to effectively increase your business footprint, who directly benefits from that? And who would suffer? If I owned one of the Clark Street bars I would be very concerned about the negotiations going on with city hall.

Its with this in mind, that when I hear the improvements in and around Wrigley Field will enhance the guest experience, I reach for my wallet. Because thats what the bottom line here is. Upon my arrival to Chicago 18 years ago and my initial visits to Wrigley, I often wondered aloud (because thats how I wonder!) and later in this space, why the team didnt own the buildings surrounding the stadium poaching off their business. For most people, myself included, there is only a limited amount of time allotted to going to a game. The team should understand this and act accordingly. The common denominator of all of the stadiums built since Camden Yards in Baltimore was the number of options that a ticketholder has once they enter the ballpark. There are still options in the neighborhood, but the fun starts once you go inside and head down Eutaw Street. (I often tell folks at the bar, you havent lived until you get a picture in front of the stadium with the Babe Ruth statue and then go inside and have Boog Powells sweaty head add extra flavor to your barbeque beef sandwich before the game!)

So I can understand the Cubs trying to grab as much fan cash as possible, its their game.

And heres where the relationship should be honest. The enhancement is for one reason and one reason only. Again, no problem with that, just be upfront.

You know, like NHL commissioner Gary Bettman. Did you see his heartfelt apology to the fans for the lockout? Please.

His only job is to make money for the NHL owners. He apparently is pretty good at this. Since he took over 20 years ago, NHL annual revenue has risen from around 500 million to the current 3 billion. Wowza! For a niche sport in this country, thats impressive. Part of the collateral damage of this ascension though, were the three forced lockouts of their primary expense, the players. Did he apologize the other two times? I cant remember. Or care. Im a hockey fan. I just want to see the best players play. I dont need crocodile tears.

In a way, this lockout could end up working out to the NHLs favor. With the condensed 48 games in 99 days schedule, us fans are expecting more exciting, playoff-style hockey than we would see in a normal regular season, which of course will make everyone in the NHL more money in the long run. Funny how that works. Not funny ha-ha, but funny.
Because in the long run, its about the product. Do you think the Hawks public relations blitz right now would have had the same resonance 10 years ago? Thats what a Cup will do for you.

Add the NBA and the NFL to this labor strife mix.

Will the fans come back? Of course we will. Were fans. What else do we have to do?
In todays world fans will show their support but it comes in many different ways. No longer, I think, is a fan measured by how many games they go to. Who has the time, and more importantly, the money?

The fan today spends plenty on team merchandise and has to be able to watch any game, at any time, wherever they are. Thank you smart phone!!

And after spending all of your cash on jerseys and league subscriptions, who can afford going to the actual games? Add in to the fact that they are giving away big-screen HD TVs, why would you want to leave the house?

Me, I have to be compelled to go to a game. Two things do that. One is an over-the top experience for the large sum of money I know that Im going to invest. Wrigley held that for quite a while, but I have to admit, it looks pretty cool over my fireplace also and I dont have to worry about parking or a trough. Ive been there more recently for concerts. Now that is something that is worth the money. Seeing an iconic musical act in one of the iconic structures of all-time. Paul McCartney? Roger Waters? Bruce? Now thats priceless.

The other, and you would think this is unbelievably obvious, a winning product.

People want to be a part of something special, not a bridge to nowhere. Going to see a team that is near the top of their league is always cool and will always be the major part of the equation. That is an enhanced guest experience every day of the week.

If you build it, they will come. With their wallets open.

Fans like us, baby we were born to pay!

Hawks Talk Podcast: What's the cause of recent struggles?

hawkspod.png
USA TODAY

Hawks Talk Podcast: What's the cause of recent struggles?

On the latest Hawks Talk Podcast, Pat Boyle and Steve Konroyd discuss the latest slump and how much does Artem Anisimov's injury play a role in their struggles?

Konroyd tells us he was surprised by Ryan Hartman's benching in Tampa.

The guys play the game, playoff minutes or press box minutes?  They run through the players who are on the bubble when it comes to postseason play.

They also discuss the Hawks chances of overtaking Washington for the President's trophy.

Plus, Konroyd breaks down possible first round opponents: St Louis, Calgary and Nashville.

No sign Bears locked into drafting a QB in 2017 as Ryan Pace underscores 'best available' tack

No sign Bears locked into drafting a QB in 2017 as Ryan Pace underscores 'best available' tack

PHOENIX – NFL owners meetings, like the Scouting Combine, invariably involve hallway conversations regarding quarterbacks. Why doesn’t Colin Kaepernick have a job? Why does Mark Sanchez have one? Will Jay Cutler take one? This year, despite a 3-13 record last season and a continuing slide toward irrelevance, the Bears are in intriguing part of those conversations, or maybe, whispers.

The reason, beyond the obvious fact that the Bears stand at No. 3 in a QB-lite draft, is because the Bears not only have done significant things at the position – cutting Cutler, signing Sanchez and Mike Glennon, not signing Brian Hoyer – but one NFL source said to keep an eye on the Bears as potentially being involved in at least one future blockbuster after this season.

More on that in a moment.

First of all, every indication is that GM Ryan Pace is absolutely NOT locked into or about to allow himself to be pressured into drafting a quarterback in 2017. Certainly not at No. 3, maybe not at all. Maybe this is pre-draft posturing, misinformation or misdirection, and Pace has said in the past that he wants to draft quarterbacks but hasn’t in his first two Bears drafts. But still:

“We’re going to draft the best players available, wherever that may be,” Pace said on Tuesday. “And if it’s a quarterback, it’s a quarterback. But we’re going to take the best players available. I think now some of those things are unforeseen. You can’t predict some of those things. But right now I like the way Sanchez blends with Glennon and with Connor Shaw.”

Whether the public likes Pace’s moves at quarterback, or whether they’re good, bad or anywhere in between is just offseason speculation for now. The NFL will start giving him meaningful feedback sometime this September. What Pace has in fact done, regardless of analyses at this point, like it or not, is create options for himself and his coaches. And those extend beyond 2017.

Some context here: Even with some measure of job security in the short term, Pace is tasked with winning in the future as well as the present. He has addressed the 2017 quarterback situation, if not spectacularly, with Glennon and Sanchez specifically. But think beyond ’17; because Pace is.

More context: GM’s and head coaches like and need options. Doubts about Glennon, Sanchez, Connor Shaw or some rookie notwithstanding, Pace has the Bears positioned with options, not necessarily good options, but arguably best-available for the most part.

A little more context: Dowell Loggains may not have quelled all doubts about his play calling, but Cutler, Hoyer and Matt Barkley all had their best NFL stretches, albeit short, under his stewardship. 

Pace has effectively positioned the Bears for not one or two, but as many as a half-dozen spins of the quarterback wheel looking for a winner. It is a place the Bears were not in for most of Cutler’s tenure outside of brief Hoyer and Josh McCown bursts.

Within this context, consider the Pace’s chances for a strike at THE priority position for the franchise:

Spin 1: Mike Glennon

Pace announced the former Bucs quarterback as the Bears’ starter. Probably is. But Matt Flynn was the Seahawks’ starter when they free-agent signed him away from Green Bay in 2012. He lost his starting job by the end of training camp to a rookie third-round draft choice, Russell Wilson.

The Bears chose Glennon over Cutler and Hoyer because of upside; if Glennon plays to his perceived ceiling, the Bears have him under contract for two more years.

Spin 2: Mark Sanchez

When all the cynical subsides, consider him a low-risk spin who has been good enough to stand a career 37-35 as a starter. McCown amounted to something and still is after age 30, even with bad teams. Hoyer played some of his best football the past two seasons, after age 30. If Loggains resuscitates Sanchez’s career at age 30… .

Spin 3: The rookie

How, where and even if – make that a big IF – the Bears make their first Ryan Pace draft pick of a quarterback doesn’t come around for another month. But whomever the Bears select, if they select a quarterback this draft, gives Pace another spin of the QB wheel.

Spin 4: Kirk Cousins

CSNChicago.com confirmed that the Bears called on Cousins’ availability, even with the specter of Washington’s franchise tag hanging over him. But as one NFL source noted, Cousins is on a one-year deal ($23.94 million tag guarantee), it is his second and presumably last tag, and he has spurned long-term Washington offers to this point.

Glennon’s contract commits the Bears to $16 million this year. After that, minimal guarantee. Sanchez, one-year deal. Cousins, one-year deal.

Next offseason… . 

Spin 5: Jimmy Garoppolo

The Eastern Illinois quarterback wasn’t deemed worth a No. 3 pick in 2014, in either round one or two. He hasn’t put enough on film to make him worth that pick now.

But if the Cleveland Browns don’t trade for him, or New England hasn’t turned to him and locked him up contractually, he would be an unrestricted free agent next offseason. It will take a long-term market deal but at least he wouldn’t cost a high No. 1.

Spin 6: Connor Shaw

He is already clearly getting a preseason look, as he did last year, and is ahead of evaluations that accompanied David Fales and some other Bears hopefuls. He’s found money if he develops into something, but Warren Moon, Tony Romo and Kurt Warner were all undrafted free agents, too.