In New York, if you are not a Yankees and Giants fan, you are a retard.

If the Sox were to ever leave wouldn't a majority of their fans favor a new team over the Cubs?

The difference is that the Yankees were a perennial champion, so it should have been not much of a problem to switch to them once the Giants and Dodgers left, just like fans of the Cardinals switched to the dominant Bears.

Plus, the Giants and Dodgers primary rival was each other, as they would only play the Yankees in the World Series (which was quite often at times), so a Giants fan becoming a Yankees fan should have been a lot easier than becoming a Dodgers fan.

Also, and I know this is hard for the younger fan to grasp, traditionally there was a clear and definite difference between the two leagues. The National League fan was known for his pomposity and belief in the superiority of the Senior Circuit. The Yankees could be as great as they wanted, but to some old time fans they were still just the champions of the upstart league no matter how many World Series they won. National League guys just weren't going to switch to be fans of an AL team.

People don't choose one team over the other; they're raised with them, you flyover-state yahoo.

A couple things here. First the Sox and Cubs don't "both have long histories of sucking". The Sox finished over .500 for 17 straight seasons in the 50s and 60s. The Cubs were the worst team in baseball over that span. The Sox have been good a lot of the time. There have just been teams that were better (Yankees, A's). Some of those better teams were legendary. To compare the competent White Sox to the hapless Cubs post WWII is silly.

A couple things here. First the Sox and Cubs don't "both have long histories of sucking".

Yes they do

87 years can't be explained away by "there were some really great teams then"

True. And if we are going back to the 50's then let's just go all the way back throughout both teams history.

Why the fuck do they exist? In both cases, there is a clearly superior team in your own city. Plus, those superior teams go back to the early part of last century, not the 1960s.

It's not like the Cubs and Sox, where both go back a long time and both have long histories of sucking. In New York, if you are not a Yankees and Giants fan, you are a retard.

Yes they do

87 years can't be explained away by "there were some really great teams then"

Even if both teams have sucked, they aren't comparable. The Sox went forever without winning a title but they have been mostly competent, competitive, and/or respectable for most of my lifetime. The Cubs have been a laughingstock of sports along the Lions/Clippers level.

Even if both teams have sucked, they aren't comparable. The Sox went forever without winning a title but they have been mostly competent, competitive, and/or respectable for most of my lifetime. The Cubs have been a laughingstock of sports along the Lions/Clippers level.

Yeah, whatever Im not getting into this.

The Cubs have been a laughingstock of sports along the Lions/Clippers level.

In your lifetime, the White Sox and Cubs have the same amount of playoff appearances, don't they?

Yeah, whatever Im not getting into this. The Sox have been better post WW2. That's true.


I just think from the longview people look at the title droughts of the Red Sox, White Sox and Cubs and think losing teams.

Cubs 6 ('84, '89, '98, '03, '07, '08)
Sox 5 ('83, '93, '00, '05, '08)

But that brings up the question, which is worst: "Being competitive but falling short or Completely failing?"

Sox out drew the Cubs almost every season until 1984, when the Cubs won the division and were on free basic cable across the US for every kid to come home and see day baseball while the White Sox went on private Pornovsion for 5 years and killed a generation of fans.