The Boss has passed.

[Antitrust32]

I forgot NHL hockey playoffs also... I do not watch the regular season.. and I really dont watch the playoffs either cause I dont get VS channel..

Tho the ones on NBC, I'd rate inbetween top pitchers and college basketball.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i forgot about horse racing.

Is it even on TV?

But yes, I enjoy watching the Derby preps, Derby, Preakness, Belmont, Haskell, Travers, JCGC day, and BCC on tv.

I'll put that right in between AZ Wildcat football games and other NFL games.

Dont care for TVG or HRTV, plus I dont get the channels, so they will go unranked.

I dont watch tennis.. that is why its on the bottom.

you gotta MSG+ in ocala , then you get serling on the big days

[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

[slotdirt]

On what planet is Atlanta mid-market? Just curious.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

Atlanta is freaking HUGE. How could they be a mid market team?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Atlanta is freaking HUGE. How could they be a mid market team?

Yeah, but I don't think the owner had that much money?

[slotdirt]

Atlanta might have crappy pro sports fans (like NYC has crappy college sports fans), but it's the ninth biggest MSA and growing more and more every year. Not exatly mid-market. If that is the case, Boston is mid-market, as are Detroit, DC-Baltimore, and virtually every other metropolitan area that isn't New York, Chicago, or LA.

[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.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

i forgot about horse racing.

Is it even on TV?

But yes, I enjoy watching the Derby preps, Derby, Preakness, Belmont, Haskell, Travers, JCGC day, and BCC on tv.

I'll put that right in between AZ Wildcat football games and other NFL games.

Dont care for TVG or HRTV, plus I dont get the channels, so they will go unranked.

I dont watch tennis.. that is why its on the bottom.

Bowling?

[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/

[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

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Bowling?

I do watch more bowling than tennis.

I actually dont mind watching bowling.. though it helps when you are in a certain mind state.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

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).

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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).

that was the case in the 20's and 30's , etc etc etc , it don't mean george made the game worse

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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

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.