Dan was very clear that the Cubs and increased ratings put coin in his pocket. He gets a bonus based on ratings. He said he was still a Sox fan, but very glad to have the Cubs on 670. The Sox rights killed the ratings.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

The Sox haven't been playing for the last two books.

The Sox rights had virtually NOTHING to do with Dan's ratings.

_________________

I don't know, Dan may have gotten screwed by how Nielsen defines his time slot. It is true that when the Sox were bad, there was virtually nobody willing to Farmer's awful call of awful baseball on the radio. So if Nielsen was including all the ears that clicked off for the 5-7pm local start times in the "afternoon drive" ratings, he may have gotten unfairly punished.

Just like how this year, Dan will be unfairly praised for his ratings gains, with it being incredibly likely that his time slot dominance is attributable to Cubs games with local start times that overlap with Nielsen's definition of afternoon drive.

FAKE NEWS

_________________

What Dan really misses. but he will never say, is the lead in that McNeil used to provide for him.

_________________

Yeah, if I remember correctly, B&B against Mac would lose, B&B with Mac gone did okay, and B&B with Mac as their lead-in did great.

_________________

nevermind

I bet Pat Hughes makes 5 mill + per year. Coomer 1 mill +

The announcers are team employees IIRC so the Cubs would pay them.

However the pre-post game and production staff would be 670 employees.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

Tribune article posted on page one of this thread:


READ.
THE.
FUCKING.
ARTICLES.

Why is this so difficult for posters here to do before commenting?

Honest question: a good number of your posts focus around how dumb everyone here is. So my honest question is why do you keep posting here?

_________________

Same reason we all do, to make ourselves seem smarter than we are.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

https://youtu.be/yAGxK7i2E4g?t=121

This explains many of us.

_________________

what else is one to do while waiting to cheat people in the uber cars?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Not everyone here is dumb but there seems to be this anonymous blob of posters that are basically the same who appear in every thread with the same shit. So other posters, who should know better, decide to indulge these guys in hypotheticals because almost everyone here is pathologically addicted to bickering and arguing.

It hurts the discourse.

We need a poll on who the smartest board posters are.

So you decided to engage Ogie Ogelthorpe?

_________________

And calling people morons and retards is supposed to help?

I didn't pretend what he said was true or even plausible just to argue with him. I chastised him for not bothering to read the thread before posting.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

If I wanted to learn something useful from America, I'd ask him how to rip people off via Uber.

_________________
“When I walked in this morning, and saw the flag was at half mast, I thought 'alright another bureaucrat ate it.'" - Ron Swanson

People on this board - of all stripes - have made me re-think my positions on a number of issues. There are a lot of different perspectives that are all valuable, regardless of the poster.

My point is this: you're not as smart as you think you are. But if you disagree, go post on a better board.

_________________

Different perspectives is not the same thing as aggressively wrong.

JORR stumping for the W/L stat is an argument, this dude who's name I already forgot deciding not to read articles linked in this thread and posting inaccurate bullshit is just garbage. Its shitposting, and if you really like this board so much you wouldn't be defending it.

_________________

who's = who has
this dude who has a name I already forget...

Eh, pretty weak. Have a few more doses of your medicine and get back to me.

I was actually just busting your balls on that one, but I can promise you that "who's" is not a contraction for "who has." And even if it was, the sentence still wouldn't make sense.

_________________

I'm not falling for this.