The Boss has passed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I can buy a lot of your criticisms of George but this one doesn't fly. Baseball's fall from the perch of america's game has much more to do with the advent of sports tv than anything George ever did.

Sports such as baseball or horse racing for that matter simply aren't made for tv. Football and basketball with their pace and natural stoppages are more easily staged and better to keep interest. Tv is the answer there.

There are lots of answers to the decline of baseball but listing George as a primary reason is fallacious.

Baseball lost much of it's luster after the 2 strikes, both over free agency. The resulting big/small market issues that are now simply a given but this wasn't always so. You denying that competitive balance isn't a factor in the decline of baseball is silly. Your hypothesis makes no sense if we are talking about 1973 when sports were televised widely and no sport became more widely covered with the advent of cable tv then baseball. So in the 70's people suddenly decided that football was fun to watch and baseball wasn't? Professional basketball was virtually out of business in the 70's and made a comeback on the back of Magic johnson/Lassy Bird, not because it was easy to watch on tv.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Baseball lost much of it's luster after the 2 strikes, both over free agency. The resulting big/small market issues that are now simply a given but this wasn't always so. You denying that competitive balance isn't a factor in the decline of baseball is silly. Your hypothesis makes no sense if we are talking about 1973 when sports were televised widely and no sport became more widely covered with the advent of cable tv then baseball. So in the 70's people suddenly decided that football was fun to watch and baseball wasn't? Professional basketball was virtually out of business in the 70's and made a comeback on the back of Magic johnson/Lassy Bird, not because it was easy to watch on tv.

Baseball, as a league, had a huge head start on the NFL. The "NFL" as we know it today didn't come into existence until 1970. That is the year monday night football debuted.

Sports TV went through a "revolution" if you will in the 70's. For the first time, viewers actually had choices as to what they could watch in terms of sports. First exposure for children during that generation to the sport was based on TV...not the ballpark for the first time.

Is George to blame for the deterioration of the game of baseball at the little league level as well? Kids don't play baseball as much anymore because it is a time suck and many find it boring and the fact is that its not nearly as exciting as it was in another era when sports and entertainment options were limited.

I have an 8 year old son. He played baseball for the first time this year. Loved it. Nice natural swing. We took him to see Strasburg on friday. He was enthralled as he was last month watching the Orioles beat up on the yanks. Watching it on TV? Forget it. I can get him to watch Arod or jeter or Adam Dunn but beyond that, he won't watch. It bores him to tears. Is George to blame for that? He will play Major league baseball "the show" for hours on end though.

I like baseball. I grew up thinking George Brett was the greatest and hottest thing ever and being a yanks fan when my grandpa was around. But does it really compare to football or basketball as a tv event? Come on.

Basketball was saved by Bird and magic but taken to the next level with MJ. What else happened during that period of time from 1981 on? Again, the masses had choices for the first time. You could now choose to see almost every single game Dominique Wilkins played from the time he left Georgia on while watching TBS. You could watch Jordan almost every night on WGN. Now, you weren't forced to watch baseball anymore. You had 200 other channels to watch. Kids had video games like atari now. Other youth leagues sprang up into prominence. Again, choices.

Baseball dominated during a time when entertainment choices were much more limited especially on TV.

Of course, it isnt as simple as just TV and there are several other factors involved with baseball's decline as "americas game". But if you had to put the primary key, you would have to say that the entertainment product simply doesnt match up.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Baseball, as a league, had a huge head start on the NFL. The "NFL" as we know it today didn't come into existence until 1970. That is the year monday night football debuted.

Sports TV went through a "revolution" if you will in the 70's. For the first time, viewers actually had choices as to what they could watch in terms of sports. First exposure for children during that generation to the sport was based on TV...not the ballpark for the first time.

Is George to blame for the deterioration of the game of baseball at the little league level as well? Kids don't play baseball as much anymore because it is a time suck and many find it boring and the fact is that its not nearly as exciting as it was in another era when sports and entertainment options were limited.

I have an 8 year old son. He played baseball for the first time this year. Loved it. Nice natural swing. We took him to see Strasburg on friday. He was enthralled as he was last month watching the Orioles beat up on the yanks. Watching it on TV? Forget it. I can get him to watch Arod or jeter or Adam Dunn but beyond that, he won't watch. It bores him to tears. Is George to blame for that? He will play Major league baseball "the show" for hours on end though.

I like baseball. I grew up thinking George Brett was the greatest and hottest thing ever and being a yanks fan when my grandpa was around. But does it really compare to football or basketball as a tv event? Come on.

Basketball was saved by Bird and magic but taken to the next level with MJ. What else happened during that period of time from 1981 on? Again, the masses had choices for the first time. You could now choose to see almost every single game Dominique Wilkins played from the time he left Georgia on while watching TBS. You could watch Jordan almost every night on WGN. Now, you weren't forced to watch baseball anymore. You had 200 other channels to watch. Kids had video games like atari now. Other youth leagues sprang up into prominence. Again, choices.

Baseball dominated during a time when entertainment choices were much more limited especially on TV.

Of course, it isnt as simple as just TV and there are several other factors involved with baseball's decline as "americas game". But if you had to put the primary key, you would have to say that the entertainment product simply doesnt match up.

All of which is nice and has a lot of truth to it but has little to do with the conversation that you originally quoted from. I hardly "blamed" george for the detoriation of the free world as you imply. But to ignore the negative aspects of his legacy, such as the continuing competitive imbalance in baseball which he played a big hand in, is myopic. My staement that because of competitive balance in the NFL, virtually every team can become a powerful team is still ture and is not true in baseball. Social factors aside would you agree that if you bought the Minnesota Vikings you would have a better chance of winning and establishing a championship contender than if you bought the Minnesota Twins? Or Miami Dolphins vs FL marlins? Or Seattle Seahawks vs. Seattle mariners?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All of which is nice and has a lot of truth to it but has little to do with the conversation that you originally quoted from. I hardly "blamed" george for the detoriation of the free world as you imply. But to ignore the negative aspects of his legacy, such as the continuing competitive imbalance in baseball which he played a big hand in, is myopic. My staement that because of competitive balance in the NFL, virtually every team can become a powerful team is still ture and is not true in baseball. Social factors aside would you agree that if you bought the Minnesota Vikings you would have a better chance of winning and establishing a championship contender than if you bought the Minnesota Twins? Or Miami Dolphins vs FL marlins? Or Seattle Seahawks vs. Seattle mariners?

Chuck you make it sound as this all started under geroge

was baseball un-competitve in the 20's , 30's 40' and 50's when the yanks were winning every thing in sight

weren't there teams in those decades that never had a chance either , i mean come on , yankee domination started in the 20's , had a hiccup from '64 until '76 , baseball has survived and prospered with the yankees winning in all decades

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

Chuck you make it sound as this all started under geroge

was baseball un-competitve in the 20's , 30's 40' and 50's when the yanks were winning every thing in sight

weren't there teams in those decades that never had a chance either , i mean come on , yankee domination started in the 20's , had a hiccup from '64 until '76 , baseball has survived and prospered with the yankees winning in all decades

While it is true that the yankees won a lot in the 50's and before there were only 8 teams in the AL back then, no blacks and nothing west of the Mississippi. Plus there was very little competition during that period, the NFL was not really a big league, the NHL was strictly a northern sport, there was no NBA.

The world is a different place. Sure complete parity is not the best scenario as we need teams to not only root for but root against. But when you listen to baseball conversations the big market/small market factor almost always comes up. hell one of the big reasons that Strasburg was kept in the minors so long was to delay him starting his arbitration right. Sure they get to keep him another year but you know as well as i do that if he pans out the Yankees will be siting there to snatch him up, just like they did with Sabathia and what they are going to do with Cliff lee.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

All of which is nice and has a lot of truth to it but has little to do with the conversation that you originally quoted from. I hardly "blamed" george for the detoriation of the free world as you imply. But to ignore the negative aspects of his legacy, such as the continuing competitive imbalance in baseball which he played a big hand in, is myopic. My staement that because of competitive balance in the NFL, virtually every team can become a powerful team is still ture and is not true in baseball. Social factors aside would you agree that if you bought the Minnesota Vikings you would have a better chance of winning and establishing a championship contender than if you bought the Minnesota Twins? Or Miami Dolphins vs FL marlins? Or Seattle Seahawks vs. Seattle mariners?

I dont disagree with your premise for the most part but you choose some examples that defeat your point. The Twins won the world series in 1991. When was the last time the Vikes won a championship? The Marlins, although being an existence for less than 20 years, have won two titles in that time. How many have the dolphins won in that time?

The Twins have been in the playoffs consistently over the last decade. How about the vikes? As you know, the dolphins have not been very good while the marlins occasionally field a strong team or at least strong enough to win two titles since 1997.

The competitive balance portion of what you say is true for the most part but is that really the big reason why baseball isnt the number 1 sport any longer as you imply in your post?

It is easier to share money in the NFL because there is much more money to share. TV dollars for baseball arent there and the competitive balance isnt going to make much difference.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I dont disagree with your premise for the most part but you choose some examples that defeat your point. The Twins won the world series in 1991. When was the last time the Vikes won a championship? The Marlins, although being an existence for less than 20 years, have won two titles in that time. How many have the dolphins won in that time?

The Twins have been in the playoffs consistently over the last decade. How about the vikes? As you know, the dolphins have not been very good while the marlins occasionally field a strong team or at least strong enough to win two titles since 1997.

The competitive balance portion of what you say is true for the most part but is that really the big reason why baseball isnt the number 1 sport any longer as you imply in your post?

It is easier to share money in the NFL because there is much more money to share. TV dollars for baseball arent there and the competitive balance isnt going to make much difference.

no no no

chuck doesn't like the yankees , george , or yankee fans , he has a bias in theses matter if you don't already know

george was good for the game on whole , were the problems , yes , but the total package was a positive

[slotdirt]

The Marlins bought two championships and in both cases had to immediately auction off all assets in order to make payroll the next season. They've hardly been competitive otherwise.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

The Marlins bought two championships and in both cases had to immediately auction off all assets in order to make payroll the next season. They've hardly been competitive otherwise.

the atlanta braves made the playoffs more years in a row than the yankess, if that is not an example of how a mid market team can't compete you guys are hopless

the small teams have it tough , but that was the case long before george came into the picture

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

no no no

chuck doesn't like the yankees , george , or yankee fans , he has a bias in theses matter if you don't already know

george was good for the game on whole , were the problems , yes , but the total package was a positive

What have I said that wasn't true?

Let me ask you a question. If George didn't buy the yankees do you think baseball would be in worse shape? Since I already know your answer, Why?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What have I said that wasn't true?

Let me ask you a question. If George didn't buy the yankees do you think baseball would be in worse shape? Since I already know your answer, Why?

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

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I dont disagree with your premise for the most

It is easier to share money in the NFL because there is much more money to share. TV dollars for baseball arent there and the competitive balance isnt going to make much difference.

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.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.

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..

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I dont disagree with your premise for the most part but you choose some examples that defeat your point. The Twins won the world series in 1991. When was the last time the Vikes won a championship? The Marlins, although being an existence for less than 20 years, have won two titles in that time. How many have the dolphins won in that time?

The Twins have been in the playoffs consistently over the last decade. How about the vikes? As you know, the dolphins have not been very good while the marlins occasionally field a strong team or at least strong enough to win two titles since 1997.

The competitive balance portion of what you say is true for the most part but is that really the big reason why baseball isnt the number 1 sport any longer as you imply in your post?

It is easier to share money in the NFL because there is much more money to share. TV dollars for baseball arent there and the competitive balance isnt going to make much difference.

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/

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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/

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

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.

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.

[slotdirt]

And that would explain why absolutely nobody cares about the NBA anymore.

[MaTH716]

I honestly think it goes hand and hand. I'm a big baseball fan and still love to play, but I have to admit I hate watching it on TV. I'm a Yankee fan so it's not a matter of them being competitive, I just think that it's a very tough game to watch on TV (playoffs are a different story). It takes too long, there is very little action most of the time and there is very rarely any type of flow to the game. Not to mention that there are way to many games. I couldn't imagine how I would feel if I rooted for a club that realistically had no chance every season. I'm sure there are fans of those teams that don't watch because of the unfair balance. So I think it is a combination of things.

I do think that fantasy baseball has given the sport a much needed boost as far as more people watching games. But otherwise as much as cable has helped the game with basically being able to watch any teams games, it has hurt with so many other viewing options (not necessarily sports) including multiple channels/shows where you could see those same teams highlights in anywhere from a 2 minute to an hour abridged version. As far as I'm concerened if I had a choice baseball would be 3rd on the list of sports I would watch out of the 4 majors, being behind football and hockey.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I honestly think it goes hand and hand. I'm a big baseball fan and still love to play, but I have to admit I hate watching it on TV. I'm a Yankee fan so it's not a matter of them being competitive, I just think that it's a very tough game to watch on TV (playoffs are a different story). It takes too long, there is very little action most of the time and there is very rarely any type of flow to the game. Not to mention that there are way to many games. I couldn't imagine how I would feel if I rooted for a club that realistically had no chance every season. I'm sure there are fans of those teams that don't watch because of the unfair balance. So I think it is a combination of things.

I do think that fantasy baseball has given the sport a much needed boost as far as more people watching games. But otherwise as much as cable has helped the game with basically being able to watch any teams games, it has hurt with so many other viewing options (not necessarily sports) including multiple channels/shows where you could see those same teams highlights in anywhere from a 2 minute to an hour abridged version. As far as I'm concerened if I had a choice baseball would be 3rd on the list of sports I would watch out of the 4 majors, being behind football and hockey.

agreed. The only games I can really sit through and watch are Phillies games, but they dont bore me for one second.

I cant sit there and watch a Reds - St Louis game, or anything like that.. though I darn well can sit down and watch a Jets vs NE game.

The only non-phillies baseball games I'll watch are when a top pitcher is out there (I seem to watch all of Strasburgs televised games), or playoffs / WS.

My viewing list would be:

Eagles games
Phillies games
Arizona wildcat football games
other NFL games
other College football games
golf
top pitchers
college basketball
MLB games I dont care about
NBA
womens volleyball
soccer
tennis