This is kinda big news
by Fear on Dec 6, 2009 10:27 AM PST
75 comments
Alright, I know this isn't Seahawks news but it is news that indirectly affects the Seahawks:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965
ESPN is reporting that the NFL is pulling the plug on the $100 million NFL revenue sharing program. The NFLPA is challenging it. This also means the minimum spending requirements for the teams (yes they exist) no longer apply to the teams that can no longer draw from this fund. We're one step closer to baseball everybody!
Oh and this doesn't affect the $6.5 billion in revenues shared by all clubs. Which is a far bigger and more important part. But this is still going to cut around $10 mil from the budget of the lower income teams.
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I kind of agree with baseball's format.
It sucks that the Yankees spend so much more, but they have more people and more fans, so shouldn’t they have a higher chance of winning. If they win, more people are happy.
Please say you are kidding...
Sometimes it can be hard to read sarcasm in print. But because New York City has more fans, people, and money, they should win more often? From some misguided utilitarian goal of making more people happy? Please please plese say no.
For one, by this logic, Seattle should never have a particularly winning team in any sport. One of the joys of sports, and the main reason (I believe) that the NFL has passed MLB in popularity is the general “parity,” which certainly isn’t perfect, but is far closer than in sports where teams can spend ungodly amounts of cash to produce a winner and beat out teams trying to win on identifying talent.
I am sad to hear that any revenue sharing in the NFL will be decreased. Teams like the Bills and Green Bay are a great part of the NFL tradition, and if these smaller markets become completely irrelevant just because they don’t have the same sort of money, it makes the game worse.
Now I’m not saying there is perfect parity right now. The Bills (and the Raiders and Lions) have been bad / terrible for almost a decade now. But this is becuase of consistantly bad coaching and front office moves, not because they cannot afford their players. Right now in the NFL, teams are rewarded if they make smart moves with their money (and they luck out and those players don’t get hurt), rather than just throwing unlimited supplies of cash at talent, like baseball.
by Dedalusson on Dec 6, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Thank you for saying what I didn't want to spend the time or energy to say
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed.
And, Go Royals, Pirates, Reds, Brewers, Indians and anyone else not a major market.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 5:04 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not kidding. New York has say 30 million fans.
We have say 2 million fans. Why should we have an equal chance of winning?
As for your ‘one of the joys of sports’ argument, people still enjoy high school sports. International soccer is popular. The World Cup is popular despite a few teams being stacked. I think the NFL is a better product because it’s once a week and is on Sundays. You can be a casual fan who knows a lot because it doesn’t take too much time.
The NY metro area is a combined 17 million
And has what? 8 sports teams? We have 2 (in a metro area of 3.5 million).
I read 25 million somewhere, but I was including the rest of the US, and international people as well,
since there seem to be so many Yankees fans at games where the Yankees are visitors.
Well, I would say those "Yankee fans" in the stands aren't from NY.
I’ve lived in WA, Cali, and Colorado. I’ve known maybe three Yankee fans who grew up in NY, the rest wear the gear and support the team because they see the Yankees on tv all the time, the Yankees win, therefore when choosing a team they choose one that wins, i.e., the Yankees.
(There was a large surge of “RedSox Nation” a couple years ago when they were winning more than the Yanks.) It’s the same logic why there are so many Cowboy fans around too. And Steelers and Packers. Or did you just think everyone wearing the gear moved from the ’burgh or Appleton Wisconsin?!?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, and I dislike most of those bandwagon fans. But the point stands,
if the Yankees win every year, there is arguably more happiness brought to the US. If the Royals win, there is little happiness brought to the US, unless they’re 10x happier than Yankees fans (which I actually think they probably will be if they win). Obviously, the more often they win, the less happiness each successive championship gives them, but then the Royals with their payroll 1/7 that of the Yankees win, and they’re happiness perhaps equals what a Yankees fans would be in total value because despite small numbers, the fans are happier due to the infrequency and unlikelihood of the event.
You cannot put values on fan joy.
And if the Yankees won every year there would absolutely NOT be more happiness brought to the US. That’s the most ridonkulous thing you’ve said so far in this argument, and that’s saying something!
By your “more they win, less happiness each successive championship gives them” argument, the Yankees shouldn’t enjoy any victories anymore, because they’ve already had more than everyone else. (27 to 2nd place St. Louis, and 5 since ’96.)
Basically, they need to take like a 100 year break, come back at 2099 and see if it is time for them to “enjoy” another championship.
Hogwash.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
If my theories sound 'ridonkulous' it's because I'm just throwing out random theories.
Also, why can’t you put a value on fan joy? How much would you pay to see the Seahawks win the Superbowl? Now sum it up with every other Seahawks fan. Compare that to Cowboys’ fans. If the Cowboys kept winning, I’m pretty sure that dollar value they’d be willing to pay would go down. And if your team hadn’t won in say, 80 years, the fans would be willing to pay a lot more.
As for your 27 argument. Excluding this year, they didn’t win for about 10 years, which would probably mean that they would value a championship pretty highly compared to other years. If you won a championship 10 times in a row, would the fans care as much for the 10th one as they 1st one? I’m guessing no. I could be wrong, but it seems things are valued more if they’re perceived as harder to get, or more rare.
People enjoy high school sports because they are tied to a community,
and frequently they have friends/relatives/relatives of friends on teams.
I still can’t believe your premise. Under your premise, should we even have games? I mean, why not just cut MLB down to two teams, let everyone root for either the Yankees or the other team (Probably Red Sox or Dodgers) and then 1/2 america will be happy when their team wins!
Yay for happy people cheering for the winners!!!
Why should we have an equal chance of winning you ask? Because sport is a meritocracy, because if there isn’t an equal chance (at least in theory) it isn’t “sporting,” hence isn’t sport.
Makes me think—Florida just lost. Cost them a chance at the National Championship. Maybe they should pull out of the SEC and schedule their ENTIRE schedule against the Florida Internationals, Charleston Southerns and Troys of the world. Why play ANY games you can’t win?
And the World Cup? It’s nationalism. Not every team thinks they have a chance to win, but they support their nation, just like the Olympics. It’s a sense of pride in country, and the little nations hope to do the best they can, and “represent” which is different. Plus it isn’t a yearly thing, so interest is high. You put it every year and tell people to cheer for their CITY not nation, and tell them that 85% of cities (including yours) have no chance to win— think it would still have such a large following?!?
I guess China should win every World Cup— it would make their people happier, and since there are more Chinese than any other nation, their country’s citizens deserve the happiness that comes from winning more.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
You joke but...
Makes me think—Florida just lost. Cost them a chance at the National Championship. Maybe they should pull out of the SEC and schedule their ENTIRE schedule against the Florida Internationals, Charleston Southerns and Troys of the world. Why play ANY games you can’t win?
that has been the trend for the last 20 years, and it keeps getting worse. Many of the top teams only face 2 or 3 real teams each year, and they are usually within their own conference so they have to face that team. But that’s a discussion for another day.
That's not my premise at all.
If 30% of MLB fans are Yankees fans and Red Sox fans, why is it so bad if they win 30% of the time? One could argue that if they only won 2 out of every 30 years, that would be unfair because it wouldn’t be represent the population.
As for your international pride and sense of community arguments, that was my point. Dedalusson argued that one of the joys, and possibly the main joy of sports was parity. And I gave two examples of things that also gave fans a reason to root for sports. Royals fans are still intense, so parity, while something that would give them more of a chance for their team to win, isn’t the thing stopping them from being fans.
Would you agree that the more a team wins, the more fans they have?
… and the more fans a team has the higher chance they should have of winning, as you feel, what is the point of playing the games? Let’s just be done with it and declare one team the winner for all time and disband. Because that is where your scenario would lead eventually, if I understand you.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
There seem to be a lot of assumption and leaps in logic.
Where have I said that New York or teams with more fans should win all the time? And where have I said that there is no point in playing games?
I have said neither. I said that I wouldn’t mind if a team like New York could spend more if they receive more revenue, and since they have more fans, I am fine if their teams win more often.
At no point did I say that you had said those things.
The only thing I attributed to you was this; “the more fans a team has the higher chance they should have of winning”. And that was from your quote in the first comment in this thread, where you asked, “…they have more people and more fans, so shouldn’t they have a higher chance of winning”. And what I’m asking you, is that if you in fact feel that way, doesn’t winning breed more fans? And then doesn’t it stand to reason, a greater chance they should have of winning? And so on and so forth until that (extreme) conclusion? My point is that the size of ones fans base should have nothing to do with the revenue sharing structure, in so far as a the largest markets should be rewarded for a greater population. The advantages of having that base are already built into the population (larger tax pool, the ability to start their own cable networks, etc…). Professional sports leagues are only as strong as the smallest markets, otherwise the spots cannot grow.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
I actually agree with you...
…about the playing once a week on Sunday thing. You are absolutely right and it drives me crazy when people attribute all the popularity of a sport to one detail (as I admitted did in my post). But I couldn’t disagree more that because New York has more fans they deserve to win more.
If a team has better management and players, it deserves to win. If a team has more dollars and fans, it does not.
What that really is isn't about playing once a week...
it’s about something else entirely, and that’s what makes the NFL, college football and college basketball more intriguing than the NBA, MLB, NHL.
The key is “sense of urgency.” Every game matters on a smaller continuum, so players are more dialed in, and it makes for more compelling viewing— even at the high school level… it isn’t always about talent being the most interesting thing to watch. The passion is what makes the shorter schedule sports more interesting.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 7:14 PM PST up reply actions
I never said deserve.
I said it wouldn’t be bad if they had a higher chance of winning than a small market team.
The point is that they should have more baseball teams for being such an enormous market
So they don’t have such a retarded advantage.
And that's true, New York has two baseball teams,
two basketball teams (Nets), two hockey teams, two football teams, etc.
But seriously,
The leagues control where teams play. If this was pure capitalism there would be far more teams in New York/New Jersey and New England, teams would move to the higher revenue areas.
Limiting New York (and NJ) to two teams structurally reinforces a significant competitive advantage, one that would be eroded instantly if teams were free to move. Revenue sharing is one way to mitigate the structural geographic competitive advantage.
There is revenue sharing and the "geographic competitive advantage" allows it to flourish.
Why were the ratings for this years World Series so much higher than last years? The Rays were a good story last year, but juggernauts trump when it comes to making money; and shown by the ratings, when the Yankees win, everybody in baseball wins (in terms of revenue) because more people seem to like baseball (whether they are fairweather fans or not).
Same goes for every other sport. Why did ratings and revenue spike when the Lakers played the Celtics and not when the Finals was Cleveland vs. San Antonio? Golf wasn’t even as close in popularity until Tiger started winning every tournament; now, when he’s out of tournaments, nobody pays attention. Do you think other golfers preferred playing 15 years ago? Granted, they would have a better chance of winning without Tiger, but there’s so much less money to be made. America loves stories about David, but Goliath runs our sports world and is the reason it makes so much money.
If teams/individuals like the Yankees, Tiger, Red Sox, Lakers, Celtics lost their competitive advantage, every other team that doesn’t have the “geographic competitive advantage” would suffer overall. It’s true that the Royals or the Bucks would win a championship every now and then and bring a lot of joy to that region, but America as a whole prefers it when Goliath wins, even if they don’t know it.
One last example – the most popular league in the world in terms of fans is the Premier League, even though it has absolutely no parity with one of only four teams (ManU, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal) winning every year.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 7, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry, but your World Cup analogy is way off
Firstly, and I know this isn’t the point you were making, no one gets paid for playing for their country. Secondly, teams aren’t ‘stacked’ – the only element playing into the hands of the ‘bigger’ soccer nations is a seeding system for the draw. If the best players in the world are from, say, Uruguay and they play well enough, are coached well enough and enjoy some good old fashioned luck – they’ll win the World Cup.
Personally, I love the current system. It rewards skill in the front office as well as on the field. Seeing all the best players on one team is what the pro-bowl format is for.
That is completely ridiculous...
These are games. Nobody should get a regional advantage that allows them to keep or purchase talent.
You're nuts.
When teams are not competitive, they lose fans. When teams lose fans, they lose revenue to exist. Without other teams, New York has no sport.
New York depends on the rest of the country and should encourage competition.
I never said anything about getting rid of competition.
I still want the draft. I said let NY spend more than Jacksonville, that seems fair to me.
As for your argument, I’m not sure. The Royals still have funs, and some of the suckier teams in soccer in England still have fans.
I don't agree whatsoever.
For that reason, my baseball fandom has dwindled to near nothing. Team that writes the biggest check wins. It’s utterly unbalanced and ridiculous.
Thanks for the article though...
this concerns me. I know we have the richest owner, so it would hypothetically help us more than other teams, but that doesn’t make me feel better.
I want the games to matter, and I want the playing field to be as level as possible.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 5:15 PM PST reply actions
I don't think there should be rules in place to make the playing field as level as possible.
But I do believe you should force teams to foster competitiveness. It’s basically the difference between Capitalism and Socialism (I prefer Capitalism). I don’t want to wander into politics, but this is the best analogy I can use.
This is a sport though.
Teams are free to do other things to try and maximize profits (those PLT’s or whatever that the Giants started abusing for example) but on the playing field itself it should be a level playing field. That’s what sports are supposed to be about: who is better at the sport, not who has the richest daddy.
You won't ever be able to create a level playing field, though.
You can’t clone 32 Adrian Petersons.
You can, however, put in place a financial structure to foster competitiveness. This debate is more about baseball than it is football. I think football has done a good job at fostering competitiveness. Baseball needs a salary cap, and if you have a salary cap, you need a minimum cap as well. Otherwise, you get the Yankees and Pirates. With the NFL possibly having teams not spending a minimum, you will see less of a level playing field.
I don't disagree with you there...
A salary cap, which you just said baseball needs, is a socialism mechanism not a capitalism one, if we follow your earlier analogy.
My biggest gripe with baseball is Yankee fans. They were born on 3rd base, and think their team just hit a triple. Football avoids that (though “socialistic mechanisms”) and the sport is better for it.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
I wasn't trying to say we need each team to be a copy of eachother.
Rather, I meant where each team starts from should be equal. If a team doesn’t have AP, it’s because they failed to draft him or failed to set themselves up in a position to get him. It has to do with talent evaluation. How good people are at their jobs. I include the staff, from GM down to line coaches and training staff, as part of the team. The owner doesn’t do anything but pay the bills and rake in the cash. And in baseball, he decides if he wants to buy a championship or not. I don’t like that.
If you want Capitalism....
….then you HAVE to get rid of the draft. One of the greatest examples of collective planning and Socialism in the United States.
On of the premises of the modern NFL is that bad teams have the odds stacked in their favor. That makes the game better. It is unfair, but it makes the game better.
The NFL owners agreed to share revenue for the benefit of the game. It has worked WONDERS. If they stick with the plan that has worked so well recently, the game will continue to grow. The more they selfishly grab at more money, the more the game will suffer.
Agreed. They will truly become "pound foolish and penny-wise."
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 7:19 PM PST up reply actions
No owner in his right mind would spend more than he generated in revenues.
Maybe for a season or two… but not for an extended period of time. The Seahawks are about middle of the pack when it comes to revenues, if not in the top of the bottom third in the league.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
This isn't actually true.
In Europe, many basketball team owners do. They simply anticipate the loss while trying to win, and give a certain level of “civic duty” credit to themselves for giving their city/fans something to cheer for.
I know a couple of the high ranking Italian clubs with wealthy owners operate on this sort of a spectrum, and it isn’t about profit (they have enough money) it’s about having something cool to show off that they spent their money on… the equivalent of buying a really cool expensive car w/o needing the car to increase in value for the purchase to be worthwhile.
You know, sort of like Howie Coffee COULD have been, instead of how he was/is.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions
Touch'e
But still, American football is more about the bottom line than anything else. Could the same be said of European basketball? And in European basketball, do their salaries exceed $100 for an entire roster?
Remember the Euro is greater than the dollar.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions
Found an article that glances on this...
http://www.peterrobertcasey.com/2009/10/economys-effect-on-basketball-worldwide.html
“Outside of the U.S., most basketball clubs don’t make a profit. Teams operate at a slight loss every year or just break even, spending what is given to them by sponsors.”
The NBA salary cap is below 60 million, so it’s safe to say they don’t come close to 100 million in Europe, but several upper tier clubs whose names you would know (CSKA Moscow, Benetton Treviso, Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Panathinaikos BC) will have significant money put toward contracts and will often run at an operating loss, sometimes spiking short term while trying to “buy a championship.”
There are frequently world teams that attempt to buy championships from time to time, bringing in a ton of players/paying high dollar “just to win.” This does happen more easily in hockey however, as international rules generally have restricted the number of “import” players (i.e. American or off-continent), whereas you can recruit a talented high end hockey team from the NHL and lack American/Canadian players.
Check this out for a listing by league of hoops “import allowances”… WOW!
Confusing!
http://www.ballineurope.com/european-basketball/euroleague/will-the-hgp-change-european-basketball/
Anyway, yeah, there is a tremendous amount of focus on the business/bottom line in American sports, too much in my eyes. But it is what it is, sigh…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 6, 2009 9:46 PM PST up reply actions
Wow..
Well maybe someone should tell Paul Allen about this.
Also.. I’m also under the impression that with the new uncapped season, there are rules in place that will not allow the higher revenue teams to go on a spending free-for-all.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 10:21 PM PST up reply actions
It's worse in soccer.
Lately there’s been a rash of wealthy owners buying out teams and spending absurd amounts of money to buy all the best players in an attempt to win a championship. Some of the English leagues are revising their rules because of it.
Yes but when they say operate at a profit, do they mean it like the Soinics did?
“In 4 years we’ve lost $20 million annually in operating profit, but the value of the team has appreciated $200 million.” Or whatever the numbers were.
Every sports league is more about the bottom line than anything else.
Having two competitive teams and 20-30 non-competitive teams is bad for the bottom line.
I disagree.
Consider the Premier League – every year, it’s won by Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, or Arsenal, while the remainder of teams fight for mediocrity and to not be relegated. You have to go all the way back to 1994 to find a year where one of those teams didn’t win. Still, it’s still the most popular and most watched league in the world.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 7, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions
Liverpool has never won the EPL.
By the way…. I love the relegation system.
Basically the bottom 3 teams in the Premier League get “sent down” to the 2nd league (Coca Cola) each year. Likewise, the top 3 in the 2nd league get promoted to the EPL. Teams CANNOT sandbag for draft picks or they risk being sent down to the 2nd tier (losing money and having then to battle again to regain Premier Status).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Right, I just meant there's only four contenders every year.
I also think relegation is awesome; I wish we had some functioning 2nd leagues where we could do this.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 8, 2009 3:53 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah the whole financial structure would need to change as well...
But wouldn’t THAT take all the “let’s tank games for draft picks” talk away?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Seriously.
And we wouldn’t have teams like the Knicks loading up on shitty players with expiring contracts, whether they’re good or not, just so they have a shot at top free-agents eventually.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 9, 2009 6:34 AM PST up reply actions
Great point...
It sucks for the fans and it sucks for the game.
PS: Are you an EPL fan at all? I used to be an Everton fan, but have found myself riding the Drogba, Lampard, Malouda, Anelka, Terry (god they are loaded) train lately.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I'm a Liverpool fan,
or as much a fan as I can be without being able to see the vast majority of games. go reds
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 9, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
Gotcha...
Living here in Thailand it’s all football (soccer) all the time. I can’t turn on a TV without seeing EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, or Serie A.
PS: That team is NOT the same without Gerrard healthy and in-form, and if Torres’ ball control is off (like it is now) they have nobody with any feeling around the goal. Man could they use a guy like Crouch again.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
This is just a bargaining play by the NFL
an uncapped year would end revenue sharing anyway. By making the announcement early they’re putting extra pressure on the NFLPA.
Yes Drew K, Tim Tebow will get picked in the first round.
This would suck.
What I hate about baseball is that it’s always the Yankees and Bo Sox along with every other big market team that makes the playoffs with the exception of the Twins. It’s not a fair playing ground. Small market teams can’t even draft the best talent because they’re not sure they can even sign them. I hate seeing the small market teams become Farm teams for the Yankees and Bo Sox.
What makes Football so great is that the playing field is even no matter what market. It truly revolves around how you spend your resources and not how much resources you can spend.
What Football needs is a Rookie Salary Cap like the NBA so veterans are not cast away for top 10 talent that hasn’t even proven itself. Give rookies a 3 year contract and then let them become RFA after they’re contract is up. Football is better than baseball because it’s cap!
I hear the word 'better' being thrown out a lot.
I don’t know if it’s necessarily better either way. Which would get more publicity, a 100 m dash between 8 guys who all have a PR of 9.9 seconds, or the 2008 or 2009 Olympics or World Championships for the 100 m dash featuring Usain Bolt? As much as people love to see a level playing field, people also like to see David upset Goliath, and if not, Goliath kicking the crap out of David is still fun to watch too.
Other than a Mariner’s game, I know the most likely baseball game I’d watch would be Yankees versus Red Sox. If all the teams were about even (in terms of payroll, and presumably talent/record), then I suppose I might watch Sunday Night Baseball, but certainly not with the frequency that I watch SNF or MNF.
As for football in general, since there are only 8 home games, most of which are sold out, or near sold out, I can’t imagine that there would ever be little parity since the TV revenue (I believe) is split equally, meaning that most teams will still have a similar amount of money to work with. Baseball, with its’ 81 home games I’m guessing derives a much higher percentage of its’ profits from attendance (and less from tv since any specific game is a lot less likely to be watched). The average just above casual fan will probably watch most if not all of their NFL teams games on tv, whereas even hardcore baseball fans miss 30 or so games.
I'm not following this...
“Other than a Mariner’s game, I know the most likely baseball game I’d watch would be Yankees versus Red Sox. If all the teams were about even (in terms of payroll, and presumably talent/record), then I suppose I might watch Sunday Night Baseball, but certainly not with the frequency that I watch SNF or MNF.”
Does this mean nothing more that you are more of a football fan than baseball? How does leveling the financial playing field, to a degree, steer you in one direction or another? And if you already watch more football than baseball, why follow the ’baseball model"?
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
I'm actually more of a baseball fan...
My Yankees Red Sox example is meant to say that there are a few teams that most people will watch, even if they aren’t fans of the teams. This is due to I guess their ‘history’, but moreso to the fact that they’ve been good for a the last 15 or so years and look to continue that trend because of the disproportionate expenses situation. However, I think MNF draws a much bigger tv rating than SNB even if the teams playing in MNF are awful.
So when it comes to two teams that a local fan cares nothing about, I would venture to guess that the fan would be more likely to watch a prime time football game than a prime time baseball game, unless of course it is one of those teams in baseball with a large salary. It’s not really an argument, just an observation.
As for
And if you already watch more football than baseball, why follow the ’baseball model"?
I’m not advocating the baseball model. I’m fine either way. I don’t watch more football than baseball. Also it has nothing to do with me, since I’m not concerned about myself, but about everyone, and I think either way you will have happy and enthusiastic fans as soccer, football, and baseball show.
I'm a fairly large baseball fan.
And if I see Yankees vs Red Sox I turn the TV off immediately, or switch channels. Even news about those teams makes me change channels, as the airwaves are so saturated with them that I can’t stand hearing more of it.
I actually believe the more avid fans of the sport, rather than just those two teams, feel the same way.
ESPN does the same thing covering the NFL. They report the same shallow pool of stories without actually covering the league in depth. It’s a broader appeal to the more casual fan. A sort of dumbing down of knowledge and information that turns a more avid fan of a team or sport away, looking for more depth, I believe.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
That's why I found LL, USSMariner, and Field Gulls.
I feel far more informed for it, though LL scares me sometimes.
You're wrong about attendance, by the way.
The Yankees OWN their own cable network, the YES network is the primary reason the Yankees are so wealthy comparatively, not their ability to sell out the ballpark.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 7, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
Yes I realize that part, I'm excluding the YES network.
The YES Network is an anomaly. Even without the YES Network the Yankees would get more money than any other team though.
Convenient.
Disregard the single most significant factor in the Yankees profit.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 7, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but I'm saying, even if the YES network didn't exist, they'd still be the most profitable.
And the Red Sox without a network are also very profitable and have a very high dollar amount for their player salaries.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
