Originally posted by golfer1 Your second statement applies to the Marlins. However, name three other major sporting attractions in the Tampa Bay area. The NFL and NHL seasons are not going on right now, so they don't count. The Rays are alone. As this is the Rays first good season, the fans have not gotten used to them winning yet and have not gotten past the days where they went to th ...[text shortened]... for the Rays to start winning. 🙂 And trust me, there isn't a lot to do in the Tampa Bay area.
All good points, however, to generate fan interest one needs more than just one good season. For example, my team are the Reds. It amazes me that when they have a short winning streak in a season the announcers look around the stadium and wonder why there is not better fan attendance. Of course, this is all in the wake of an abysmal record lasting more than a decade. LOL. Likewise, the Rays have done NOTHING other than a rather good start to the year this year and likely will tail off and resume their loosing ways just like my team.
Originally posted by whodey I say this because all I hear is that fan attendance is down across the league. I have not done any analysis on it, however. All I know is that ever since the baseball strikes in the 90's, baseball has not seemed to be the same.
Unsurprisingly, you are, as usual, misinformed. MLB attendance has been up 4 years in a row and last year set an all-time record. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/25/mlb-attendance-is-up-for-fourth-season/
The last figures I saw through May had attendance up 2.6% from last year's record.
Originally posted by whodey All good points, however, to generate fan interest one needs more than just one good season. For example, my team are the Reds. It amazes me that when they have a short winning streak in a season the announcers look around the stadium and wonder why there is not better fan attendance. Of course, this is all in the wake of an abysmal record lasting more tha ...[text shortened]... to the year this year and likely will tail off and resume their loosing ways just like my team.
If people refuse to support their teams even when they are playing well, that's up to them. But throwing other teams' (who's fans do support them) money to those teams won't solve the problem.
Originally posted by no1marauder They are both having excellent seasons, both being in second place at almost the halfway point being only a 1/2 game and 1 game out in their respective divisions. Yet their attendance is abysmal; the Marlins are dead last in attendance and the Rays 27th, neither team even filling up half their seats on the average. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendanc ...[text shortened]... mpetitiveness will help the attendance of these and other franchises, what does this say to you?
Despite their success this season, it is my opinion that Tampa Bay should be eliminated. Baseball should contract to 28 teams. But if the Rays are going to stick around, then they'll probably have to put together several winning seasons in a row before they catch on. They've been dead last in the AL for most of their existence. They're 13th out of 14 this year despite having the best record. Look to see what their attendance is next year, as teams will often see a spike the year after they've had a good season.
As for revenue sharing and increased competitiveness, there are small market teams out there who manage to remain competitive on a consistent basis. Minnesota comes immediately to mind. They're a very well run franchise. One of the big reasons they don't win more often is because they can't afford to re-sign their big free agents. With a little revenue sharing, maybe they could afford to keep someone like Santana instead of trading him to New York.
I understand you're cranky that it's been a few years since the Yankees won the Series, but I don't think revenue sharing is the reason for that drought.
Originally posted by rwingett Despite their success this season, it is my opinion that Tampa Bay should be eliminated. Baseball should contract to 28 teams. But if the Rays are going to stick around, then they'll probably have to put together several winning seasons in a row before they catch on. They've been dead last in the AL for most of their existence. They're 13th out of 14 this y ...[text shortened]... kees won the Series, but I don't think revenue sharing is the reason for that drought.
Just trying to stop socialism from befouling America's national pastime. Even Emma Goldman might balk at sending money from Multimillionaire A to Multimillionaire B so that the latter could, if they choose (and often they don't) pay more millions to Multimillionaire C.
The Yankees are dead to me after this year, so this is their last shot. Maybe if they hadn't been financially raped by teams with fewer loyal fans willing to pay money to watch 2nd rate baseball, they wouldn't have made the disgusting mercenary decision to tear down the Cathedral of Baseball in the Bronx to build a monstrosity that's sole advantage is that it can be loaded up with corporate boxes for rich fat cats (at the expense of 5000 seats for the average fan).
Originally posted by no1marauder Unsurprisingly, you are, as usual, misinformed. MLB attendance has been up 4 years in a row and last year set an all-time record. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/25/mlb-attendance-is-up-for-fourth-season/
The last figures I saw through May had attendance up 2.6% from last year's record.
Of course I follow a small market team. I don't know the statistics but I would guess that most amall market team attendance is down as where Big market team attendance is up. This, of course, would all be proportional to the fact that big market teams have higher winning percentages than small market teams on average. Do you have such statistics?
Originally posted by no1marauder If people refuse to support their teams even when they are playing well, that's up to them. But throwing other teams' (who's fans do support them) money to those teams won't solve the problem.
Sounds good to me. If owners can't get people into the stands for whatever reason then just let them dissolve into nothing. You seem to think that winning and loosing have nothing to do wtih this and, in addition, money teams spend on payroll have nothing to do with the success of these teams. That is your call, howver, I disagree. As for myself, I stopped going to Reds games because I could not take their lack of competitiveness on the field. Why should I waste my time or support a team that seems to care little about winning? Either they are unwilling or unable to win. I am not sure it matters which is the truth. It would be sad to see my Reds dissolve into noghting, however, is loosing decade after consecutive decade any better? In fact, perhaps we can weed out the small market teams like the Reds and only have big market teams that are able to compete with other big market teams?
Originally posted by rwingett Despite their success this season, it is my opinion that Tampa Bay should be eliminated. Baseball should contract to 28 teams. But if the Rays are going to stick around, then they'll probably have to put together several winning seasons in a row before they catch on. They've been dead last in the AL for most of their existence. They're 13th out of 14 this y kees won the Series, but I don't think revenue sharing is the reason for that drought.
You are wasting your time. He does not believe that fan attendance is effected by winning/loosing. He also does not buy the fact that big market teams have a distinct advantage over small market teams.
The Yankees are dead to me after this year, so this is their last shot. Maybe if they hadn't been financially raped by teams with fewer loyal fans willing to pay money to watch 2nd rate baseball, they wouldn't have made the disgusting mercenary decision to tear down the Cathedral of Baseball in the Bronx to build a monstrosity that's sole adva ...[text shortened]... up with corporate boxes for rich fat cats (at the expense of 5000 seats for the average fan).[/b]
You are giving up on your team because they are going to tear down the stadium? I am one up on you. In addition to having my stadium torn down, which was Riverfront stadium, I have also had to watch the most pathetic baseball in the major leagues for over a decade now as well. You may not think the tearing down of the stadium a tragedy unless you stop and realize the only recent good memories of Reds baseball was ONLY in that stadium like that of the Big Red Machine. Despite it all, however, I still follow my team. Why I still follow them I may never know.
As far as the Yankees go, I would say that what you have is the worst team $200 million can buy. LOL.
Originally posted by whodey You are wasting your time. He does not believe that fan attendance is effected by winning/loosing. He also does not buy the fact that big market teams have a distinct advantage over small market teams.
You contradict yourself and the facts in every post. I gave the link to this year's MLB attendance in my first post; if winning/losing records is the primary determinant of attendance, why is Tampa Bay, with the best record in baseball, 28th in attendance? If big market teams have all the competitive advantages, why is Tampa Bay and Arizona in first, and Minnesota and Florida in second? And if the Yankees are the "worst team $200 million can buy" why are they once again leading the majors in attendance?
Try to make at least a little sense; you're making none now.
What MLB needs is a minimum cap, say 55 million, especially with the aid of the luxury cap this should be doable. If you won't or can't (usually won't) field a 55 mill salary, then don't have a team.
Originally posted by no1marauder Just trying to stop socialism from befouling America's national pastime. Even Emma Goldman might balk at sending money from Multimillionaire A to Multimillionaire B so that the latter could, if they choose (and often they don't) pay more millions to Multimillionaire C.
The Yankees are dead to me after this year, so this is their last shot. ...[text shortened]... with corporate boxes for rich fat cats (at the expense of 5000 seats for the average fan).
If Emma Goldman was a sports fan (a doubtful proposition) she probably would have endorsed the 'Player's League', which played one season, in 1890. She may have been aware of it, as she was in New York by 1890. The Players League was set up by the players to try to challenge the owner - player relation that had evolved by that time in the National League. They wanted to have the ball clubs essentially be cooperative enterprises, with the players themselves in charge of things. This was in response to the notorious 'reserve clause' which bound players to their present teams until they were traded or released.
The National League eventually won the battle between them and the Player's League folded after one season. The template for all subsequent professional sports franchises was then set. Curt Flood, of the St. Louis Cardinals, tried to challenge the legitimacy of the reserve clause in the 60s, but was unsuccessful.
Originally posted by badmoon What MLB needs is a minimum cap, say 55 million, especially with the aid of the luxury cap this should be doable. If you won't or can't (usually won't) field a 55 mill salary, then don't have a team.
Why? baseball has more parity than any sport. There is only one team that has a current streak of making the playoffs more than once in a row. Last season every team played won less than 60% of their games and every team won more than 40% of their games. The team with the worst record in 2007 currently is the best team in baseball.
It keeps the owners from shyly pocketing away the luxury tax, and will cause player moves to be made showing an owner's commitment which may in turn foster more team loyalty.
Originally posted by whodey You are giving up on your team because they are going to tear down the stadium? I am one up on you. In addition to having my stadium torn down, which was Riverfront stadium, I have also had to watch the most pathetic baseball in the major leagues for over a decade now as well. You may not think the tearing down of the stadium a tragedy unless you stop and ...[text shortened]... as the Yankees go, I would say that what you have is the worst team $200 million can buy. LOL.
Are you freaking serious? Riverfront Stadium was a piece of crap, "cookie cutter" stadium with artificial turf that wasn't opened until 1970. The Reds had a few very good teams there.
Do I have to tell you the history of Yankee Stadium? You're comparing gold to pyrite.
Rays and Marlins
30 Jun '08 11:16
Back to Top