The main problem in this film is that it takes an audience that is notoriously against sport and places them in a movie basically about sport.

If theres one thing that WILL turn off audiences it will be that

Notoriously against sport?

Well Fever Pitch is doing some good holdover buisness, so who knows.
Its interesting to note though that Fever Pitch did really very shoddily in its opening frame [it has THE lowest PTA ever for the top 145 widest releases] ; not much of a deal was made about it. Anyone remember in 2004 when "13 Going on 30" opened second place with a $21m bow? People were proclaiming that Jennifer Garner was box office poison because it didnt top $25m and the chart... But no such criticisms dumped on Drew Barrymore this year, it seems. Infact, theres been no hoopla at all over its misfire at the box office, which is quite the opposite of last year, perhaps becuase "13" was against Denzels "Man On Fire" and it seems that Mr Washington has quite a following on these sites?

It will take a big theater drop to find out if Fever Pitch has what it takes to stick around.

so basically the difference is everyone expected Fever Pitch to dissapoint, whilst 13 was expected to be a massive superhit? Fever Pitch didnt have a big $24m+ hit opening the week after, and if it DID drop more than 13 then god knows its pta would have practically been non-existent. There are way too many conditionals in the box office fanboy world, it gives me a headache

Instead of getting into an argument about how women aren't notoriously against sport [i was generalizing] ill say this.

People on box office websites tend to morally object to the idea that they are grouped/ generalised as part of a demographic. Movie studios use sterotypes to form their marketing and movies - the majority rules and people who are not in a majority love expressing outrage at the implication that all women hate sports; that all African American people like rap movies, that all teenage boys wanna see Angelina Jolies breasts or whatever, when of course there is no implication - theres the facts, theres audience groupings and thats what studios base profits upon.

People really need to come to terms that when someone generalises on a box office website they are looking at the bigger picture; they arent sitting saying "All women ever hate sport" they are saying that a movie with lots of sport will not appeal to the "typical" woman; of course there are lots of women who like sport - but the general targeted audience who go see romantic comedies are not interested in seeing a Baseball game.

I think that the issue of demographic labelling is something that should be widely adressed in box office websites; because its a big part of the reasoning behind studios releasing films; but people get so easily offended by the ethos that studios use that they almost like to ignore it. Classic groupings of the audience seem to offend some on a deeply personal level; they dont like the idea that studios are making a film to pick them out.

so basically the difference is everyone expected Fever Pitch to dissapoint, whilst 13 was expected to be a massive superhit? Fever Pitch didnt have a big $24m+ hit opening the week after, and if it DID drop more than 13 then god knows its pta would have practically been non-existent. There are way too many conditionals in the box office fanboy world, it gives me a headache

Well i didnt think it would be a super hit, i thought it could pull off at least a $27m opening and a $85m+ close.
But the fact that Fever Pitch has performed shockingly for a picture in over 3,200 sites and goes relatively un-noticed at doing it says a lot.