Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 668947)

They had a freakin superstation funding the team.

Let me explain it for you in simpler terms. If Scuds took over the Yankees and used his insane logic in putting a team together, they would still be competitive because they can just eat bad decisions. At least 1/2 of the teams in MLB would be crippled for years by one bad, Yankee-like contract.

The Red Sox are a lesser example but they too have the ability to pay way over market but they have usually not gone as far as NY, though the pitching signings they have made fairly recently are looking a little shaky (Dice K, Lackey, reupping Beckett).

Originally Posted by gales0678 (Post 668939)

yes , cbs would have continued on dragging the most valuable franchise in sports down for the next few years and the fact is like it or not when the yankees are on people watch baseball

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 668949)

You didnt answer the question. What if CBS sold to a different, less bombastic owner? Say they sold to John henry (the red sox owner not the horse)?

Yeah those Yankee/Royal and Yankee/Indian games are must see tv.

Originally Posted by gales0678 (Post 668950)

when did the small teams have a chance over the yankees , dodgers etc etc in any given era of baseball ??? the orioles and red sox beat up on the yanks in the 60's and early 70's , that was it

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 668937)

You are missing the point. If you start from scratch in those markets which team has a better chance at winning? The NFL teams do because if you do your homework, draft good players, work the cap, hire top coaches and get a little lucky with injuries your team can compete for the title regardless of where you are located. In baseball that simply isnt true. In Pittsburgh or Kansas City you can do all of the above and yet not have a chance to be anymore than a one or two year fringe playoff contender. The same franchises in the NFL can be perennial contenders.

The money is easier to share in football because there is very little local broadcasting (preseason only) which is where the inequity exsts. I am not saying that the Yankees should send the Pirates money from those broadcasts. But the current system in which the yankees simply pay a luxury tax isn't much of a detriment becuase of the huge tv and radio revenues they accumulate.

The system that baseball currently has causes too many teams to always be seller which in turn leads to more and more unwatchable games and dead fan bases. Tampa is a great example of what happens. Of course there are alot of factors that effect things there (bad stadium in poor location, prior poor ownership/management) but the fact that the team was unwatchable for many years is being felt in the apthy towards the team which is really good. Add in that they will have a hard time holding onto the young stars that have made them a playoff team and you have a situation that stinks. But how can you blame fans for not wanting to get attached to a player or team? A few years ago Cleveland beat the yankees in the playoffs and what do ya know their best pitcher winds up playing for who? While the Indians are unable to keep the core parts and have to rebuild.

look at the wins
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/

Originally Posted by Crown@club (Post 668923)

Actually each MLB team receives at least $80 million from TV deals and radio rights. This was big news when the Marlins were asked where did their money go when they refused to sign Dan Uggla this season.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 668956)

I am not missing the point. You are simply changing your point. You said that when George took over in 1973, baseball was the number one sport and he was one of the primary reasons why that is no longer the case. I say TV is the Primary reason why that is the case and blaming George doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

I don't dispute much of what you say in this thread. I simply contend that baseball's TV entertainment product is nowhere close to the NFL's. That has little to do with competitive balance.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 668959)

MLB teams each get 30 million dollars from the central fund (40 mill -10 mill for pensions,etc). Most MLB will then make an additional 15 million and up on local tv deals (with teams like the Yankees being the exception with their own network).

The other 35 million that you are talking about comes from revenue sharing from teams like the Yankees and goes to the bottom ten teams in the league.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 668963)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/25/comm...sbiz/index.htm

. Baseball will finish this year with just over $6 billion in revenue, according to Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's president and chief operating officer.

To put that into context, that puts baseball right on the heels of the more than $6 billion in revenue reported by the National Football League in 2006.

Yes, baseball has a lot more games from which to generate sales than the NFL, but that has always been the case. Simply put, baseball has done a much better job in the past few years of boosting its revenue beyond traditional sources, i.e. ticket sales and television broadcasting.

Baseball's sales have increased 50 percent from 2004 and have doubled since 2000. The NFL's sales grew at roughly half of baseball's pace during the same time period.

DuPuy told me the level of growth this year surprised even him and Commissioner Bud Selig. He attributed the gains to more competitive balance in the game, which has helped improve attendance for teams in smaller markets such as the National League champion Colorado Rockies and Milwaukee Brewers, which was in the race for a division title up until the final week of the season.
The growth of the online ticket resale market has also spurred more season ticket sales, DuPuy said. It also helped cut down on the number of no-shows, which increase sales at the concession stands. That's one of the reasons that the MLB signed a deal with eBay (Charts, Fortune 500) unit StubHub, which lets people buy and sell tickets, in August.

Online ticket sales is the perfect example of why baseball revenue has grown so dramatically. The sport has been able to take advantage of several sources of revenue that could hardly be imagined as baseball was coming out of the 1994-95 strike.

The MLB.com Web site, satellite radio broadcasts, an out-of-market television game package and much better than expected international growth have all boosted sales..

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 668961)

I didnt change my point. That the competitive balance in baseball has been an issue in its losing popularity and that george played a large part in that.

Again the context in which I answered a particular post from Gales is missing. He wants to act as though baseball would have been in such terrible shape without Georges arrival on the scene. That isnt true and his lasting legacy will be the continuing inequity in payrolls in baseball. TV has nothing to do with what we were discussing which was George's legacy and has little to do with baseball's demise.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669165)

First of all, this is an editorial and the dollars that are being thrown around for "total rev" are being kicked around by the COO of MLB who might just have a little bit of an agenda...No? LOL. "competitive balance" benefits whom? It wouldnt be the commissioner's team would it?:rolleyes:

As far as the NFL's total revenue, do you really think you or anyone else has an accurate guage of what they are really taking in? The fact is, the Player's association is going after the books pretty hard.

If anyone, you included, really thinks that Mlb's total revenue is equal to the NFL's revenue, there is a bridge in arizona to buy and a short bus to ride over it on.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669166)

Just so I understand, are you saying that TV did or didn't help football surpass baseball as the number 1 sport in the US?

Originally Posted by Scav (Post 669173)

Someone find what Al Davis said about George. It was just on ESPN2 bottom line and it was CLASSIC!

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 669172)

So they are just making this stuff up? Why would they do that?

I just thought it was interesting that "competitive balance" was given as a reason for the increase in revenues since you more or less called me an idiot for suggesting that it was important.

But of course they have an agenda and are lying so I am still "wrong". :wf

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 669175)

Why must you try to draw a line everywhere and make things black or white or put words in my mouth? Your inference that tv was the driving force behind football becoming more popular is such a broad statement that it cant possible be answered any other way than yes. But TV doesnt turn itself on and make you watch it.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669179)

Its not about being "right" or "wrong". The commissioner and his underlings have an agenda and you know it. Regardless of whether or not that agenda is in the best interest of baseball as a whole is debatable but his position on the subject of "competitive balance" is well documented and his own team is one of the chief beneficiaries of that position. Is anything I say here inaccurate?

Any story that claims that baseball is equal to the NFL in total rev has to be looked at with an extreme amount of skepticism if not dismissed as utter garbage.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669181)

It indeed can be answered with a yes or no. Was TV a "driving force" behind football becoming a more popular sport than baseball?

Why dance? Its a simple question regardless of how "broad" it may be.

Its as simple as saying that digital cable/satellite is a driving force in the destruction of the movie rental business.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 669189)

LOL

I suppose that yeah this is a conspiracy to prop up the Brewers.

So I post something that supports a statement that I made (and hardly a controversial one since it has been the 2nd biggest topic in baseball for years) but you summarily dismiss it because of some theoretical agenda and supposed campaign of disinformation from MLB executives?

Have you been taking classes on the Riot-style of denial posting?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 669191)

No it is far more nebulous than that. But you know that.

Here is a third party's take.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ort-in-america

The vision was that the more popular the entire league became, the more financially beneficial it would be for everyone.
The wisdom and foresight of this vision has led the NFL to unprecedented popularity and success.
So, why is the NFL so popular and successful?

The reason is due to the complete parity in the league.

Unlike most professional sports today, no matter where you live in the country, your team has an equal chance of winning the Super Bowl—this has caused the game to grow in popularity throughout every corner of the country, not just in New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles

The parity seen in the NFL today can be attributed to two main principles: equal revenue sharing and a salary cap.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669217)

LOL

Selig is commissioner. He has interest in the brewers. Fact? Yes.

Selig's brewers benefit from revenue sharing. Fact? Yes.

Selig has been pushing revenue sharing for the last 20 years. Fact? Yes.

Revenue sharing has been a hot topic in baseball and there has been a big fight over the years. Fact? Yes.

So does Selig have any Agenda? LOL. No, I guess not.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669220)

This is hilarious. I guess "the bleacher report" is another bastion of fine journalism. Thanks Mr. Google. You are talking about Riot so does that mean you are Nascar?

Anyway, from the museum of TV. Not nearly as respected as "the bleacher report" but I guess if its a museum it counts for something:

But what, specifically, makes an individual sporting event "good television?" As Channels writer Julie Talen wrote, "All sports are not created equal. The most popular sports on TV are those best served by the medium's limitations." What she means is that even if there are 20 cameras and 40 microphones at an event, the viewer still receives one picture and one set of sounds. Together these must convey a sense of what is happening in the actual contest. Monday Night Football's long-time director, Chet Forte, argued, "It's impossible to blow a football game. . .Football works as a flattened sport. Its rectangular field fits on the screen far more readily than, for example, golf's far-flung woods and sand traps. The football moves right or left on the screen and back again. Its limited repertoire--kick, pass, and run--sets it apart from, say, baseball, where the range of possibilities for the ball and the players at any given moment is enormous." And CBS's top football director, Sandy Grossman, says "The reason (the gridiron) is easier to cover is because every play is a separate story. There's a beginning, a middle, and an end, and then there's 20 or 30 seconds to retell it or react to it."

There are, in other words, certain characteristics of the different sports that make them better dramatic and visual matches for television, and in doing so, render them more popular with audiences.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 669245)

Ah the knock the source reply when the post refutes your inane take!

Yes we all know that football as a sport works well on tv.

But the conversation isnt about that. What you are saying is that all the moves that the NFL made and MLB didnt make were really pointless because football is easier to broadcast and as such was going to become more popular eventually anyway.

Thanks for your input. I will start the drive to remove Pete Rozelle from the Hall of Fame because obviously his legacy is completely overblown because, you know, football is easier to cover on tv.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 669243)

Bud Selig sold his interest of the brewers 5 years ago

Originally Posted by randallscott35 (Post 668497)

Not a good person at all....The Boss is Springsteen

Originally Posted by MaTH716 (Post 668510)

Oh I believe that he was real S.O.B. to work for. He also took a beating for some shady dealings in the late 80's.
But if you are a fan of the organization, how can you not love him? The most important thing in the world to him was winning and he would do anything possible for his team to reach it's goal.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 668529)

Peace out as.shole

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER (Post 669962)

Pig bought rings. Big accomplishment.

Originally Posted by gales0678 (Post 669986)

not all of them scuds , the mid 90's teams that were assembled were mostly homegrown talent

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 669316)

The "arcitcle" that you googled was from 2006. The numbers were from the preceeding years. Try again.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 670391)

Oct of 2007 isn't 2006. And why would it matter anyway?