NFL

[Bruins Fan]

Looks like a lock out, the players decertify their union.
I don't get it the NFL has never been in better shape,and they demand a billion dollars back?

[loki]

this is just the height of arrogance. Millionaires vs billionaires are fighting about 9 billion dollars....they can all get ****ed

[chachee52]

Wonder if this will affect the NFL like the NHL lock out affected that league? Doubt it but we will see. Bring back the AFL so Ican at least watch some football!! Or will they start playing CFL games?

[loki]

you're not going to miss any football...this will be cleared up in a few weeks

[blugill]

I'm hopeful that this will be resolved but I do believe that fans will become fans again just as soon as the first game is played. The NFL is still king and will be for a long long time.

Baseball will benefit though in the meantime.

[Bruins Fan]

Last lockout some of the stars crossed the line and played, the product was not very good.
It's going to be interesting everyone is a free agent.

[chand]

Wonder if this will affect the NFL like the NHL lock out affected that league? Doubt it but we will see. Bring back the AFL so Ican at least watch some football!! Or will they start playing CFL games?

The NFL may get stung a little but it is much more visible league now than the NHL was at this point in their lockout drama by several orders of magnitude. Fans may pout in the NFL's absence but everyone will still be there come first kickoff.

[Coach Deg]

Every public servant in America is in danger after the bill passed in Wisconsin. I refuse to listen to this crap. Let's see some of the NFL players go get a real job!

[Coach Deg]

Every public servant in America is in danger after the bill passed in Wisconsin. I refuse to listen to this crap. Let's see some of the NFL players go get a real job! Sorry being a teacher in Florida this week is not a good thing!

[forgop]

I hope they lock out the entire season-Jim Irsay has been counting the revenue for the Super Bowl next year before it's even played, so let them cancel it.

[kelmac07]

Who cares...it's baseball season!! :D Go Mets!! :tu

:wo :wo :wo

[Stephen]

With the union decertifying and this going to the courts the owners have little-to-no leverage. Their only hope is that it gets drug out in the legal system.

[Ogre]

Every public servant in America is in danger after the bill passed in Wisconsin. I refuse to listen to this crap. Let's see some of the NFL players go get a real job! Sorry being a teacher in Florida this week is not a good thing!

:tpd: Right with you bro!!!

[Volusianator]

Who cares...it's baseball season!! :D Go Mets!! :tu

:wo :wo :wo

Ugh

[chippewastud79]

A lot of other people other than players are getting screwed by this whole process right now. The only people who benefit from a lockout are the owners, every other employee of the team is out of a job until this is settled. :rolleyes:

[VirtualSmitty]

Baseball, America's passtime, is almost here. I could care less about this news right now ;)

[Stephen]

Baseball, America's passtime, is almost here. I could care less about this news right now ;)
Baseball. Isn't it that one thing people across the country used to care about until around 1994, and now only people in about eight cities do?

[AD720]

A lot of other people other than players are getting screwed by this whole process right now. The only people who benefit from a lockout are the owners, every other employee of the team is out of a job until this is settled. :rolleyes:

That is the thing right there. Everyone down to the guy that rips the tickets is going to be sweating it out. There is a massive support system for these guys to go out there and play ball. Sponsorships, advertising, it's all a stake.

[VirtualSmitty]

Baseball. Isn't it that one thing people across the country used to care about until around 1994, and now only people in about eight cities do?

No, I think you have that confused with hockey. Baseball is the sport that survives without having to resort to a salary cap, has the highest paid athletes in the country, and plays the longest season :tu

[Stephen]

No, I think you have that confused with hockey. Baseball is the sport that survives without having to resort to a salary cap, has the highest paid athletes in the country, and plays the longest season :tu
Says the Yankees fan. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_television_ratings) tells a different tale.

[VirtualSmitty]

Says the Yankees fan. This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_television_ratings) tells a different tale.

No it doesn't. World Series doesn't have those great commercials ;)

[Stephen]

No it doesn't. World Series doesn't have those great commercials ;)
Right or wrong, there has always been the, "have" and, "have-nots" in MLB. It usually wasn't an issue; prior to 1994 that is. After the strike, however, the, "have's" desperate to regain attendance and popularity figures pre-strike, loosened the purse strings (or in this case opened Pandora's box) to build instant contenders or overpay their current players to keep them from hitting the open market. The chasm in baseball is sickeneing. A simple web search of payroll versus winning percentage over the past 15 years speaks volumes. So while you're in a position to say that baseball is doing great, the grass isn't so green on the other side.

[VirtualSmitty]

Right or wrong, there has always been the, "have" and, "have-nots" in MLB. It usually wasn't an issue; prior to 1994 that is. After the strike, however, the, "have's" desperate to regain attendance and popularity figures pre-strike, loosened the purse strings (or in this case opened Pandora's box) to build instant contenders or overpay their current players to keep them from hitting the open market. The chasm in baseball is sickeneing. A simple web search of payroll versus winning percentage over the past 15 years speaks volumes. So while you're in a position to say that baseball is doing great, the grass isn't so green on the other side.

So footballs brand of sports socialism is the answer? And your websearch fails, this was the first result I got :r:r

Highest:

1) New York Yankees: $209, missed the playoffs

2) New York Mets: $138.6, missed the playoffs

3) Detroit Tigers: $138.6, missed the playoffs, and dead last in their division

4) Boston Red Sox: $138.2, Wildcard team, lost to Tampa Bay in ALCS

5) Chicago White Sox: $121.1, Won their Division, lost to Tampa Bay in ALDS

Lowest:

30) Florida Marlins: $21.8, missed the playoffs

29) Tampa Bay Rays: $43.8, won division, lost in World Series to Philadilphia

28) Oakland Athletics: $47.9, missed playoffs

27) Pittsburgh Pirates: $49.3, missed playoffs

26) Washington Nationals: $54.9, missed the playoffs

Now almost immediately, the first piece of information that jumps out is that the top three teams in the league, in terms of salary, did not even make the playoffs. Moreover, the 2nd lowest paid team (Tampa Bay) won their division (defeating the 1st and 4th highest paid teams to do it), had the second-best record in the American League, and made it all the way to the World Series (by defeating the 4th and 5th highest salary teams, Chicago and Boston).

Of course, there are statistical anomalies like the LA Dodgers. The Dodgers, statistically, should have missed the playoffs, but thanks to playing in the weakest division in baseball, made the playoffs with a winning percentage of .519%.

The Middle of the Pack...
It is clear by looking at the above numbers that paying too much for a team does not necessarily lead to positive results, but neither does skimping on player salaries, either. Yet, by being in the "middle of the pack" and having a payroll near the middle of the league, the level of success that teams enjoy proves that it is possible for teams to remain competitive, and not break the bank.

By examining the bottom five teams in the league in terms of payroll, and the top five, it is clear that the bottom five had a combined winning percentage of 0.47%. Not very encouraging. Yet, it by examining the winning percentage of the TOP five teams, their combined winning percentage was 53.7%, and the only team that made the playoffs in 2008 with a winning percentage below 53.7 % was the previously mentioned LA Dodgers. Moreover, the World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies had a payroll of $98.2 million, good for 13th highest and less than 1/2 the payroll of the New York Yankees.

Finally, by looking at the teams ranked from #4 - #15 in payroll (12 teams), 7 of them made the playoffs (out of a 8 possible spots) including each team from #4 (Boston) to #8 (Los Angeles Dodgers).



Read more at Suite101: Team Payrolls in Baseball vs. Performance: Does a High Team Salary in Major League Baseball Guarantee Results? http://www.suite101.com/content/team-payrolls-in-baseball-vs-performance-a120434#ixzz1GPj5WhNW

Look up highest payrolls, then search the last decade of world series games, you'll be surprised what you find. There is more parity in baseball than what you think.

[Stephen]

So footballs brand of sports socialism is the answer?
I have a good friend who spouts this exact phraseology. Not surprising, he's also a Yankees fan. Is this printed inside the front cover of the Yankees fan handbook or something?:sh The NFL by far is the most popular professional sport in America today because the league (current situation notwithstanding) works collectively to grow the sport, not have half a dozen franchises carry the sport. "A rising tide lifts all boats."
Look up highest payrolls, then search the last decade of world series games, you'll be surprised what you find. There is more parity in baseball than what you think.
That shows for one year (2008 I believe); not fifteen. You've flunked your homework assignment young man.:sl;)

[VirtualSmitty]

That shows for one year (2008 I believe); not fifteen. You've flunked your homework assignment young man.:sl;)

I know that. I simply posted that since I found it funny it was the very first thing that popped up searching exactly what you told me to lol. Google what I told you to Google, then come back to me. The results will shock you! ;)

[Stephen]

I know that. I simply posted that since I found it funny it was the very first thing that popped up searching exactly what you told me to lol. Google what I told you to Google, then come back to me. The results will shock you! ;)
The thing is, I already know what it shows. My point is that without an investment in payroll, there is no continued success. That's why I'm basing my argument on winning percentage and not how often a franchise makes the playoffs. I love baseball, but I hate the economics of it. A really strong union coupled with a weak commissioner makes for a bad all around product.

[jledou]

Millionaires vs billionaires if you don't think it is a big deal calculate how many years of working it will take you to equal 1 year of their salary. That said I love football, this just doesn't seem right considering how many people are still trying to just put food on their table. Juts my 2 cents

[Tio Gato]

Owners and players crying over money. It makes me wanna :pu
I think of the thousands of support personnel that are going to be out of work in stadiums and surrounding businesses. I'm pretty sure that it's tough seeing the little people when you're sitting on a mile high wallet.:2

I'll be happy just watching my Gators and the rest of the SEC.

[VirtualSmitty]

The thing is, I already know what it shows. My point is that without an investment in payroll, there is no continued success. That's why I'm basing my argument on winning percentage and not how often a franchise makes the playoffs. I love baseball, but I hate the economics of it. A really strong union coupled with a weak commissioner makes for a bad all around product.

Baseball = sports capitalism, football = sports socialism. You want to win, you invest in your business, you want to lose, don't. Plenty of small and mid market teams can and are competing and many that have been in the basement are starting to pull out. You can ignore what i've told you to look at, but the point is the Yankees and the other top spending teams aren't buying their way into a championship every year. It takes some money to compete, but that's life, and last time I checked life isn't fair. Why should our sports be?

[Stephen]

Baseball = sports capitalism, football = sports socialism. You want to win, you invest in your business, you want to lose, don't. Plenty of small and mid market teams can and are competing and many that have been in the basement are starting to pull out. You can ignore what i've told you to look at, but the point is the Yankees and the other top spending teams aren't buying their way into a championship every year. It takes some money to compete, but that's life, and last time I checked life isn't fair. Why should our sports be?
I'm not ignoring it. See?
The thing is, I already know what it shows. My point is that without an investment in payroll, there is no continued success. That's why I'm basing my argument on winning percentage and not how often a franchise makes the playoffs.
MY point is that the teams that do spend (or more specifically have the capability to spend), put themselves in a position year in and year out to win, as opposed to the anomalies that are but a blip on the radar, only to have the whole thing blown up because the owner can't compete with big market teams. Nobody's talking fair here. I'm stating a fact. And the fact is that the NFL made a wise business decision to ensure that on some level each and every one of their franchises can be financially competitive, and if ran properly, can put themselves in a positions to succeed, thus drawing more interest from fans, thus generating more revenue. MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB. That's why the NFL is King of the Mountain, and will continue to be, labor problems be damned.

[VirtualSmitty]

I'm not ignoring it. See?

MY point is that the teams that do spend (or more specifically have the capability to spend), put themselves in a position year in and year out to win, as opposed to the anomalies that are but a blip on the radar, only to have the whole thing blown up because the owner can't compete with big market teams. Nobody's talking fair here. I'm stating a fact. And the fact is that the NFL made a wise business decision to ensure that on some level each and every one of their franchises can be financially competitive, and if ran properly, can put themselves in a positions to succeed, thus drawing more interest from fans, thus generating more revenue. MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB. That's why the NFL is King of the Mountain, and will continue to be, labor problems be damned.

Small and mid market teams that are competitive aren't anomalies, they win through smart player drafting and development. The Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins, Reds, etc didn't get good by accident. And while you may love and embrace the socialist stance the NFL takes, I much prefer the more traditional capitalist approach the MLB takes. Baseball is in many ways a microcosm of America, and that to me makes it superior. To each their own though, what you think is fair I think is BS because of where we live ;)

[Stephen]

Small and mid market teams that are competitive aren't anomalies, they win through smart player drafting and development. The Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins, Reds, etc didn't get good by accident. And while you may love and embrace the socialist stance the NFL takes, I much prefer the more traditional capitalist approach the MLB takes. Baseball is in many ways a microcosm of America, and that to me makes it superior. To each their own though, what you think is fair I think is BS because of where we live ;)

Of course you love the way it is now, so when the Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins and Reds can't afford to pay their free agents, "market value", they wind up in pinstripes.;)

Again, I'm not perpetuating what is, "fair" or, "unfair" in how MLB chooses to handle their economics (funny though, that you keep preaching the NFL = Socialism mantra, but yet MLB has had revenue sharing for well over a decade now :eek:). I'm simply putting forth an opinion as to how MLB is no longer king of the hill, and how it came to be. If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?

[Starscream]

Of course you love the way it is now, so when the Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins and Reds can't afford to pay their free agents, "market value", they wind up in pinstripes.;)

Again, I'm not perpetuating what is, "fair" or, "unfair" in how MLB chooses to handle their economics (funny though, that you keep preaching the NFL = Socialism mantra, but yet MLB has had revenue sharing for well over a decade now :eek:). I'm simply putting forth an opinion as to how MLB is no longer king of the hill, and how it came to be. If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?

The Giants and Rangers played in the Series this year, both of what I would consider small market teams.

I agree with both of your arguments to a degree. Baseball is more of a capitalist system whereas the NFL is more of a socialist system. Small market teams are at a disadvantage IMHO, but once again, life isn't fair. It would be nice to see the Yanks at the bottom of their division just once though.:)

[Stephen]

The Giants and Rangers played in the Series this year, both of what I would consider small market teams.

I agree with both of your arguments to a degree. Baseball is more of a capitalist system whereas the NFL is more of a socialist system. Small market teams are at a disadvantage IMHO, but once again, life isn't fair. It would be nice to see the Yanks at the bottom of their division just once though.:)
No to argue for arguments sake, but the Giants had the 10th highest payroll in baseball last year. The Yankees (1st) & Phillies (4th) were in the LCS.

[VirtualSmitty]

If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?

Sure, who says they couldn't. I would have never predicted last years WS. And revenue sharing is a little bit different than a salary cap. There's a luxury tax too in baseball, you forgot to mention that ;)

[Stephen]

Sure, who says they couldn't.
Well for one, it'd be the Los Angeles Packers by now. There's no way that a publicly owned NFL franchise, let alone one in by far the smallest television market, would be able to compete (let alone operate) under the operating economic guidelines of MLB.
I would have never predicted last years WS. And revenue sharing is a little bit different than a salary cap. There's a luxury tax too in baseball, you forgot to mention that ;)
I don't know how luxury taxes or a salary cap relate to socialism, but I digress...

[Starscream]

Well for one, it'd be the Los Angeles Packers by now. There's no way that a publicly owned NFL franchise, let alone one in by far the smallest television market, would be able to compete (let alone operate) under the operating economic guidelines of MLB.

I don't know how luxury taxes or a salary cap relate to socialism, but I digress...

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

[VirtualSmitty]

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

Exactly. The NFL is a business and it's a business run in a very unusual way here. From websters:

Socialism
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.

[Stephen]

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).
Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms). Honestly, I can't envision a salary cap in MLB. The MLBPA doesn't want it nor do owners of major markets. Something radical would have to change, and I simply don't see that something radical on the horizon.
As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.
It'll either be the Chargers or the Jaguars. Write it down.:2
Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.
Which doesn't change the fact that they're by far the most popular sport in the United States (and have been so for some time now) and it's a direct result of those economic principles being put into place.

Good discussion by the way guys.:)

[jonumberone]

The NFL has stated if a team comes to the LA area it will be a New Franchise not a relocated one.
The main reason being the New franchise fee for the LA area will fetch them an estimated $250 million :2
As long as owners share the broadcast revenue there are no small markets in the NFL!

[Stephen]

As long as owners share the broadcast revenue there are no small markets in the NFL!
Exactly.

[VirtualSmitty]

Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms).

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.

[Bruins Fan]

The Sox owner was just fined a half million for saying revenue sharing Suxed.
Some small market teams take the money and do nothing with it but put in their pockets.
True they can't chase the big money free agents,but at least they could build up the scouting and farm systems with all the high draft picks they get.
Look at the twins small market and field good teams.

[loki]

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.

the pirates do nothing with the money they're given other then pocket it.

[kelmac07]

the pirates do nothing with the money their given other then pocket it.

And they have 18 consecutive losing seasons to prove it. :D

[VirtualSmitty]

the pirates do nothing with the money they're given other then pocket it.

Exactly. It's a shame too, the Pirates are older than even the Yankees, but hey the fans keep coming.

[Stephen]

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.
So would you be against a salary floor, or something stating that a certain percentage of shared revenues be reinvested in salary or other operating expenses?

[VirtualSmitty]

So would you be against a salary floor, or something stating that a certain percentage of shared revenues be reinvested in salary or other operating expenses?

Yea I would be against it. It's their business, let them run it into the ground if they want. If the fans stop coming it's their own fault. If the fans don't care and just keep going, what does it matter. Not all teams abuse the system, while I don't care much for revenue sharing, what they choose to do with it is up to them.

[Stephen]

Yea I would be against it. It's their business, let them run it into the ground if they want. If the fans stop coming it's their own fault. If the fans don't care and just keep going, what does it matter. Not all teams abuse the system, while I don't care much for revenue sharing, what they choose to do with it is up to them.
That's the rub for me. If you're going to share revenue, then it needs to be regulated. Otherwise, why share in the first place?

[VirtualSmitty]

That's the rub for me. If you're going to share revenue, then it needs to be regulated. Otherwise, why share in the first place?

But why? Most teams do use the money on themselves, there are only a handful of teams that abuse the system. As it stands it certainly helps a great deal of teams and outside of the teams located in the large markets who have to pay, no one is complaining. It's by no means a perfect solution, but regulating the business operations of small market team just because they are a small market team wouldn't be right.

[BloodSpite]

Ugh

Glad I'm a College Football Fan :D

[BloodSpite]

Baseball. Isn't it that one thing people across the country used to care about until around 1994, and now only people in about eight cities do?

Amen

Haven't watched baseball since the strike back in 94-95

I'll forgive the NFL players because this is a lock out, not a strike.

[Starscream]

Glad I'm a College Football Fan :D

Amen

Haven't watched baseball since the strike back in 94-95

I'll forgive the NFL players because this is a lock out, not a strike.

Umm... and isn't the BCS a complete peice of work too? Yeah, college football doesn't have any problems.:rolleyes:

[BloodSpite]

Umm... and isn't the BCS a complete peice of work too? Yeah, college football doesn't have any problems.:rolleyes:

BCS is garbage, I will 100% agree

But at least we'll be playing this year and there is no chance of a strike from a bunch of half starved college kids :r

[Starscream]

MLB will be playing too.:tu

[Sawyer]

MLB will be playing too.:tu

But no one will be watching. ;)

[BloodSpite]

But no one will be watching. ;)

Case in point I pulled up 6 nation Rugby the other day instead :banger

[Stephen]

But why? Most teams do use the money on themselves, there are only a handful of teams that abuse the system. As it stands it certainly helps a great deal of teams and outside of the teams located in the large markets who have to pay, no one is complaining. It's by no means a perfect solution, but regulating the business operations of small market team just because they are a small market team wouldn't be right.
That's why.

[Stephen]

Glad I'm a College Football Fan :D

Umm... and isn't the BCS a complete peice of work too? Yeah, college football doesn't have any problems.:rolleyes:

BCS is garbage, I will 100% agree

But at least we'll be playing this year and there is no chance of a strike from a bunch of half starved college kids :r
I'm probably the only person who actually doesn't want a college football playoff system...:lv

[Starscream]

But no one will be watching. ;)

You sure about that? How else could Pujols be asking for $300 million if no one was watching.:rolleyes:

Looks like no one will be watching NFL if they don't get their act together.

[Stephen]

You sure about that? How else could Pujols be asking for $300 million if no one was watching.:rolleyes:

Looks like no one will be watching NFL if they don't get their act together.
"A fool and his money are soon parted."

-Thomas Tusser

[Starscream]

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

-Thomas Tusser

That is true for ALL professional sports.:tu

[chippewastud79]

You sure about that? How else could Pujols be asking for $300 million if no one was watching.:rolleyes:


81 home games vs. 10 home games :tu

[Starscream]

81 home games vs. 10 home games :tu

But that means that many people are watching.

[Stephen]

That is true for ALL professional sports.:tu
No arguments here my friend. But in this case it'd be incredibly foolish.

[chippewastud79]

But that means that many people are watching.

Most NFL games are sold out and teams have a list for season tickets about a mile long. Baseball games rarely sell out, outside of rivalry weekends. Plus you can get to a MLB game for around $5-15. Not sure of any NFL teams who offer $5 tickets, maybe the Panthers and Jaguars I suppose. Try getting a ticket to a Steelers game vs. trying to get a ticket to a Pirates game, but of course you have 81 games to choose from for the baseball game. :2

[Starscream]

No arguments here my friend. But in this case it'd be incredibly foolish.

Very much so. $30 mil a year is worth it now, but when he gets old and playing with a cane, then those final 2-4 years are gonna be a drain on payroll.

[Stephen]

But that means that many people are watching.
Not exactly, that means many people have an opportunity to watch. When you have 81 home games and can't even draw 5000 a night (not even going to mention TV viewership, or lack thereof), that speaks volumes.

[Starscream]

Most NFL games are sold out and teams have a list for season tickets about a mile long. Baseball games rarely sell out, outside of rivalry weekends. Plus you can get to a MLB game for around $5-15. Not sure of any NFL teams who offer $5 tickets, maybe the Panthers and Jaguars I suppose. Try getting a ticket to a Steelers game vs. trying to get a ticket to a Pirates game, but of course you have 81 games to choose from for the baseball game. :2

And if baseball shortened its season, then they would have more sellouts. It would suck to shorten it up to only 16 games a year though.

[Stephen]

Very much so. $30 mil a year is worth it now, but when he gets old and playing with a cane, then those final 2-4 years are gonna be a drain on payroll.
Sure, he's the best hitter in baseball (and it's not all those close), but the fact of the matter is he doesn't play an important defensive position (unlike A-Rod, who's a gold glove winning SS & 3rd baseman) and that has to factor in, doesn't it?:2

I guess he could always be the DH for the Yankees.;s:D

[chippewastud79]

Of course there are many other factors to why baseball players demand so much money, but the teams have much more revenue coming in because of the size of the season and revenue sharing to draw from. Some teams spend the money, some put it in their pocket. The same could be said for NFL teams and NBA teams alike. :td

I don't think the NFL is going to alienate their fans like the NHL did during their lockout and lose a majority of their television contracts and young fan base. The NHL does put a better product on the ice now, but no one can watch it with most games being on Versus or OLN. The NHL has lost a fan base purely because they are no longer as accessible, the NFL will not lose that. But I digress. :hm

[Starscream]

Plus you can get to a MLB game for around $5-15.
Scalper tickets, yes. Normal admission, no. Not for good seats anyway. Yankee tickets are outrageous.
Not exactly, that means many people have an opportunity to watch. When you have 81 home games and can't even draw 5000 a night (not even going to mention TV viewership, or lack thereof), that speaks volumes.

TV viewership is not as big as NFL agreed, but they have a decent audience. FOX wouldn't be competing to televise their games if there was no audience.

[chippewastud79]

And if baseball shortened its season, then they would have more sellouts. It would suck to shorten it up to only 16 games a year though.

Agreed. Baseball has the advantage of long seasons (I think it is still about 30-60 games too long) but you won't see it shortened ever. Late season games, particularly between non-contenders are a drain and players (much less fans) don't even bother to show up. Who watches Pirates' series in late September? :sh

[VirtualSmitty]

Not exactly, that means many people have an opportunity to watch. When you have 81 home games and can't even draw 5000 a night (not even going to mention TV viewership, or lack thereof), that speaks volumes.

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams :r

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games. Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger :tu

[Starscream]

I guess he could always be the DH for the Yankees.;s:D

:r:r
True.

[Starscream]

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams :r

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games. Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger :tu

Well said.:tu

[chippewastud79]

Scalper tickets, yes. Normal admission, no. Not for good seats anyway. Yankee tickets are outrageous.


You can buy bleacher seats at most venues for under $10 face value, which for my money are better than sitting in the last row in any football stadium for $40+. I am a bigger football fan than anything, but a sports fan no doubt. For my money, I would rather take a family of 4 to a baseball game for around $50-75 with some snacks and beverages than a football game where you would spend more than that much on 2 tickets. :2

[Starscream]

You can buy bleacher seats at most venues for under $10 face value, which for my money are better than sitting in the last row in any football stadium for $40+. I am a bigger football fan than anything, but a sports fan no doubt. For my money, I would rather take a family of 4 to a baseball game for around $50-75 with some snacks and beverages than a football game where you would spend more than that much on 2 tickets. :2

Which is a good thing for baseball IMHO.:)

[chippewastud79]

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams :r

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games. Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger :tu

Bad teams fill their stadiums (Cubs) all the time. But the same is even more true for the NFL. Even the Browns and Raiders find a way to put butts in seats on a regular basis. :rolleyes:

The average salaries are staggering and its amazing that the sport that has the largest roster size, largest risk for injury, such a large viewership and fanbase and shortest careers has such a small payroll comparative to the NBA and MLB. :hm

[chippewastud79]

Which is a good thing for baseball IMHO.:)

I agree, it is 'America's Pastime' and continues to be the best 'value' in pro sports. It is very accessible to even the smallest of fans. It makes it easier for teams to connect with their fanbase when you can get a kid into a game for $5 and he has the chance to see a pro-athlete that close and could take home a foul ball or something similar. At NBA and NFL games you likely leave with an empty wallet. ;)

[Stephen]

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams :r
*cough*Marlins*cough*
You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games.
There's no direct comparison, but looking for some sort of breakdown I came across this doozy (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5757137). I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that people aren't watching baseball or going to games. I'm saying that there's a market there for a lot more people to watch baseball, attend games and buy merchandise, but because of the economics of baseball in its current format, restricts that untapped market.:2
Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger :tu
That's because football rosters are twice the size of football rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...

[chippewastud79]

That's because football rosters are twice the size of football rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...

You'd be surprised, after the top 10 guys the money falls off pretty fast. Elite players compared to elite players and its not even close. Even situational relievers and pinch hitters make significantly more than players who play significant rolls on NFL rosters. ;)

[VirtualSmitty]

*cough*Marlins*cough*

There's no direct comparison, but looking for some sort of breakdown I came across this doozy (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5757137). I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that people aren't watching baseball or going to games. I'm saying that there's a market there for a lot more people to watch baseball, attend games and buy merchandise, but because of the economics of baseball in its current format, restricts that untapped market.:2

That's because football rosters are twice the size of football rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...

The Marlins have a good team. In fact they usually are competitive, in a difficult division, so whats your point? It's the best example of team with no fan base thats good.

And your roster argument doesn't stack up. As said above, elite MLB players make much more than their NFL counterparts. Plus, unlike the NFL, there are three tiers of minor leagues players usually go through to get to the big show. A,AA, and AAA all have a full roster of players and coaches, and while they don't make the major league minimum they do earn a decent salary. When you factor in that cost, the operating overhead in terms of payroll is much higher than any NFL team, which just pulls talent straight from college. Plus these days most teams own and operate camps in other countries to scout talent. So the fact that baseball players are so much better compensated is indeed quite impressive when you think about it :tu

Also, the WS ratings only go to show there is comparing television ratings between baseball and football. The superbowl might as well be a holiday, everybody watches regardless of who they root for. Baseball is much more regional, I watch the superbowl for the commercials, but I only caught two games of WS because I didn't care much about either team. If the Yankees and Cubs played in a WS they would blow the superbowl ratings out of the water.

[Stephen]

The Marlins have a good team. In fact they usually are competitive, in a difficult division, so whats your point?
You said:
Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams :r
And I responded:
*cough*Marlins*cough*
And your roster argument doesn't stack up. As said above, elite MLB players make much more than their NFL counterparts.
When did I say otherwise? I simply wondered aloud (or more specifically at the end of a post rhetorically) how the average MLB salary would stack up against the top 25 players of an NFL squad.
Plus, unlike the NFL, there are three tiers of minor leagues players usually go through to get to the big show. A,AA, and AAA all have a full roster of players and coaches, and while they don't make the major league minimum they do earn a decent salary. When you factor in that cost, the operating overhead in terms of payroll is much higher than any NFL team, which just pulls talent straight from college. Plus these days most teams own and operate camps in other countries to scout talent.
Completely irrelevant to a MLB players average salary.
So the fact that baseball players are so much better compensated is indeed quite impressive when you think about it :tu
Not really. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

[VirtualSmitty]

You said:

And I responded:


When did I say otherwise? I simply wondered aloud (or more specifically at the end of a post rhetorically) how the average MLB salary would stack up against the top 25 players of an NFL squad.

Completely irrelevant to a MLB players average salary.

Not really. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

I thought you were implying the Marlins were bad. And the minor leagues are relevant as they are part of the MLB. If your not impressed by how well compensated baseball players are based on all the additional overhead MLB teams face that NFLs don't , that's your opinion. But the fact remains that baseball is very profitable, compensates it's players better than the NFL and is thriving despite all the setbacks of the last 20 years.

[yourchoice]

I'm enjoying the discussion. Very interesting.

If the Yankees and Cubs played in a WS they would blow the superbowl ratings out of the water.
:r :r :r No way. Aside from the Superbowl, I'd guess at least a half dozen other football games (be it regular season, or playoffs - if not more) would beat any World Series game....but definitely the Superbowl.

As for the topic...for a long time I believed that a capitalist structure was better...you should be paid as much someone else thinks your skills are worth.

But...for sports leagues to thrive as a whole, I think some sort of structure is needed. For the NHL to survive, they needed to take drastic measures, and they did. I think the NBA will have to do something similar (I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't play a game next year). The one thing all leagues with a cap have is both a ceiling and a floor. That's what makes a parity driven cap work. Could baseball be improved with a cap like that? Honestly, I think so...and I'm a Phillies fan! :D

[Stephen]

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries), and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

[Stephen]

If the Yankees and Cubs played in a WS they would blow the superbowl ratings out of the water.
Pfft. This is by far the most ridiculous post in this thread...

[chippewastud79]

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries), and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

Try your theory with the Yankees vs. Packers. ;)

[Stephen]

I'm enjoying the discussion. Very interesting.


:r :r :r No way. Aside from the Superbowl, I'd guess at least a half dozen other football games (be it regular season, or playoffs - if not more) would beat any World Series game....but definitely the Superbowl.
The clinching game of the World Series this past season barely beat out a Monday Night Football regular season game. Even if a Cubs/Yankees series were to go six games, I doubt their combined viewership would equal that of the Super Bowl.

[Stephen]

Try your theory with the Yankees vs. Packers. ;)
Well since the top four paid players in all of baseball play for the Yankees, me thinks that would skew the bell curve some.;)

[chippewastud79]

Well since the top four paid players in all of baseball play for the Yankees, me thinks that would skew the bell curve some.;)

Kind of like including the Pirates in an average when the base salaries for NFL players is severely more slotted than baseball. Minimum wage isn't close, and top end is even more glaring. Also, this doesn't even factor that MLB contracts are guaranteed for the life of the contract, NFL salaries are terminated on a whim with not a single dollar spent after a player is released or injured. :tu

[Stephen]

Smitty's initial point that I took interest in.
Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers.
My reply:
That's because football rosters are twice the size of baseball rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...
Kind of like including the Pirates in an average when the base salaries for NFL players is severely more slotted than baseball. Minimum wage isn't close, and top end is even more glaring. Also, this doesn't even factor that MLB contracts are guaranteed for the life of the contract, NFL salaries are terminated on a whim with not a single dollar spent after a player is released or injured. :tu
I'm not arguing that MLB doesn't have a higher floor or a higher ceiling.:tu

[chippewastud79]

I'm not arguing that MLB doesn't have a higher floor or a higher ceiling.:tu

I understand, but the average salary is hardly as cut and dry as you make it/believe. Average career, total contract, injury risk, certain teams payroll etc. all make the 'average salary' much cloudier than it is in regard internet searchable numbers. NFL teams have relatively similar payrolls, MLB teams vary so much and teams all spend their money differently. :tu

[Stephen]

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries), and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here (http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/saints/salaries)) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.
Forgot to include the link for the Saints salary; sorry.

[Stephen]

I understand, but the average salary is hardly as cut and dry as you make it/believe. Average career, total contract, injury risk, certain teams payroll etc. all make the 'average salary' much cloudier than it is in regard internet searchable numbers. NFL teams have relatively similar payrolls, MLB teams vary so much and teams all spend their money differently. :tu
Why is it you're trying to lead me down a path that I'm not arguing? I'm not talking about career earnings or injury risks. Again, here's the statement that I (reluctantly) replied to:
Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers.
I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player

[VirtualSmitty]

Smitty's initial point that I took interest in.

My reply:


I'm not arguing that MLB doesn't have a higher floor or a higher ceiling.:tu

Ah, but your missing my point about the minors. Aside from the 25 man roster that, each MLB team is also responsible for three other 25 man roster, so every MLB team has far more players to manage on a whole.

And my Yankees/Cubs posts was the second most ridiculous thing posted. Someone chimed in earlier with an ever so insightful comment that no one watched baseball anymore, figured I might as well state something as ridiculous while the thread remained civil :r

As far as the salary talks, it's just a point to show that the sport is doing well. The MLB operates much differently than the NFL, the fact that they are still able to be successful without having to resort to the NFLs brand of sports socialism is a pretty worthy achievement since most other sports in this country seem to be going down that road unfortunately. All sports are a business and they should operate like any other business in this country imho. If a team or league can't cut it, it should fail :2

[chippewastud79]

Forgot to include the link for the Saints salary; sorry.

Your link for the Saints includes their signing bonuses, which are sometimes prorated and included as roster bonuses that can be lost if a player is cut. It also includes 61 players instead of the roster of 53. For the full 61 players, assuming they made their base salary, which at least 8 of them didn't, the average is ~1.152 Million. Top 25 players average salary ~$2.012 million. If you add the signing bonuses, roster bonuses and incentives that may or may not have been reached assuming a player stays healthy, and doesn't get cut, yes, the salaries appear to be close. But look a little deeper and it is less than a third of the money on average for salary vs. salary. :tu

Edit: Also of note, the third 'best' player on the Saints makes about the average of any MLB player. Drew Brees is arguably one of the top 5 QB's in the game, the face of a franchise, and perhaps the league and makes about $1 million more than the average MLB baseball player. :hm

[Stephen]

Ah, but your missing my point about the minors. Aside from the 25 man roster that, each MLB team is also responsible for three other 25 man roster, so every MLB team has far more players to manage on a whole.
Don't most MLB teams have more than one A/AA club? Not trying to be a smartass, just been awhile since I followed the minor's closely...

And my Yankees/Cubs posts was the second most ridiculous thing posted. Someone chimed in earlier with an ever so insightful comment that no one watched baseball anymore, figured I might as well state something as ridiculous while the thread remained civil :r
If this thread does turn sour, I assure you it won't be by my doing.:)
As far as the salary talks, it's just a point to show that the sport is doing well. The MLB operates much differently than the NFL, the fact that they are still able to be successful without having to resort to the NFLs brand of sports socialism is a pretty worthy achievement since most other sports in this country seem to be going down that road unfortunately. All sports are a business and they should operate like any other business in this country imho. If a team or league can't cut it, it should fail :2
All I can say to that is this:
MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB.
It's my opinion that while each franchise has a seperate owner, the business is MLB (or NFL/NBA/NHL). You see them as a separate entity. That seem about right?

[Bruins Fan]

If a baseball player signs a three year three million dollar contract,he is going to get all his money.
If an NFL player signs the same deal he may get cut and get nowhere near what he signed for.
The NFL screws players all the time.

[Stephen]

Your link for the Saints includes their signing bonuses, which are sometimes prorated and included as roster bonuses that can be lost if a player is cut.
Which isn't applicable to these numbers.
It also includes 61 players instead of the roster of 53. For the full 61 players, assuming they made their base salary, which at least 8 of them didn't, the average is ~1.152 Million. Top 25 players average salary ~$2.012 million. If you add the signing bonuses, roster bonuses and incentives that may or may not have been reached assuming a player stays healthy, and doesn't get cut, yes, the salaries appear to be close.
Took you awhile, but you finally got there.:wnr

[VirtualSmitty]

It's my opinion that while each franchise has a seperate owner, the business is MLB (or NFL/NBA/NHL). You see them as a separate entity. That seem about right?

Exactly right. Each team is it's own brand and business :tu

The minimum is always three minor league clubs. It gets cloudy after that, there are some teams that exist and compete with no major league affiliation. Minor league teams also change hands rather frequently, i've lost track myself to be honest

And just to be clear, i'm enjoying the conversation thus far. Kudos to everyone contributing constructive posts :tu I like the back and forth and wasn't suggesting anyone was making the thread sour. I'm just surprised it has gone on as long as it has so well, on the old boards I remember a thread like this going south in a matter of hours :r

Oh and I pulled this from a site comparing 2010 baseball salaries and 2009 football salaries:

Major League Baseball
Major League Baseball's average salary per player in the 2010 season was $3,297,828. These numbers only encompass players on the major league roster, but all the teams in Major League Baseball also have an extensive minor league system, which would drastically reduce the average salary.

National Football League
In the 2009 National Football League season, the average player salary was $1.1 million. This number is severely skewed as there are several players on a team making a salary of around $7 million to $8 million, while a larger number make toward the league minimum. The league minimum for rookies in 2009 was $193,000.


Read more: The Average Salaries in Professional Sports

[chippewastud79]

Which isn't applicable to these numbers.

Took you awhile, but you finally got there.:wnr

You did get there. Average salaries for MLB players is 3 times as high as NFL players. :tu

[chippewastud79]

Oh and I pulled this from a site comparing 2010 salaries:

League minimum for 2010 was $310,000 not $193,000. Maybe they were accounting for the tax man, but it would be even lower. :tu

[Stephen]

Exactly right. Each team is it's own brand and business :tu
Which is why we have the differing viewpoints.
The minimum is always three minor league clubs. It gets cloudy after that, there are some teams that exist and compete with no major league affiliation. Minor league teams also change hands rather frequently, i've lost track myself to be honest
Right on. I thought it was like that but haven't followed minor league baseball all that closely for the past decade.
And just to be clear, i'm enjoying the conversation thus far. Kudos to everyone contributing constructive posts :tu I like the back and forth and wasn't suggesting anyone was making the thread sour. I'm just surprised it has gone on as long as it has so well, on the old boards I remember a thread like this going south in a matter of hours :r
Yeah, on a sports message board that I post at from time to time, this thread would've gotten ugly, and ugly fast. Then of course Godwin's Law would've been evoked somewhere a page or so ago and that would've been the end of that.

[yourchoice]

I'm not sure who said it where, and I hope I have am responding in context...but as for minor league baseball, those players (after receiving their signing bonus) don't get paid all that well. And, they do sell tickets, concessions, parking, etc. at the venues. I would guess most minor league teams are really close to break even - or even making a few dollars.

[Stephen]

You did get there. Average salaries for MLB players is 3 times as high as NFL players. :tu
Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I know that the average baseball player makes more than the average football player. Where have I ever said otherwise?

[chippewastud79]

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I know that the average baseball player makes more than the average football player. Where have I ever said otherwise?

This:

I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player

Followed by this:

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/salaries/avgsalaries), and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

:tu

I simply helped analyze the data, showing that the top 25 players in the NFL on average make 2/3rds of the average of a MLB player of a similar sized roster. :tu

[VirtualSmitty]

I'm not sure who said it where, and I hope I have am responding in context...but as for minor league baseball, those players (after receiving their signing bonus) don't get paid all that well. And, they do sell tickets, concessions, parking, etc. at the venues. I would guess most minor league teams are really close to break even - or even making a few dollars.

Single A ball gets paid around 20K, AA and AAA between 30-35k. The contracts are open to negotiation after a year, they don't make anywhere near the 400k MLB minimum but it's also tough to peg a definite salary range. Plus the trend in baseball is changing, quite a few teams are locking up young players early, skewing the salaries a bit. I think most minor league teams do at least break even, agree with you there.

[Starscream]

I'm not ignoring it. See?

MLB on the other hand is 30 separate businesses acting in their own best interests instead of what's best for MLB.

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

[chippewastud79]

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.

Competition is good for sports, not putting a competitive team on the field in an effort to save money is hardly acting in the best interest of any one but the owner. See: Pirates, Bengals, Clippers :2

[Stephen]

This:



Followed by this:



:tu

I simply helped analyze the data, showing that the top 25 players in the NFL on average make 2/3rds of the average of a MLB player of a similar sized roster. :tu
No, that's not what you did. You ignored a good percentage of their monies received because, well, actually I don't know why you did that. But you did.

[Stephen]

They are acting in their own best interest, which is to be competitive, sell tickets, and sell merchandise. Isn't that also what is best for the league too? In my eyes, teams acting in their own self interest is good for the sport.
But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

[VirtualSmitty]

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

[tx_tuff]

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.

The players decertified the union and left the negotiation table so the owners had nothing else to do but lock them out. Next time you go to sign a work contract tell the owner you want to see his last ten years of audits so you can decide how much you want to get paid and see where that gets you!

[tx_tuff]

Last lockout some of the stars crossed the line and played, the product was not very good.
It's going to be interesting everyone is a free agent.

That was not a lockout, that was a player strike. This is a owner lockout, will not be anybody playing football untill it is resolved.

[Stephen]

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter?
(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?
So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.
No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

[Stephen]

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.

The players decertified the union and left the negotiation table so the owners had nothing else to do but lock them out. Next time you go to sign a work contract tell the owner you want to see his last ten years of audits so you can decide how much you want to get paid and see where that gets you!
The players decertified because they were backed into a corner. And yeah, if you're going to pull a BILLION dollars off the table because you claim you're losing money, do you just expect the players to take the owners at their word, seeing how untrustworthy they've proven to be? The owners were not negotiating in good faith, period.

[Sawyer]

Ah, but your missing my point about the minors. Aside from the 25 man roster that, each MLB team is also responsible for three other 25 man roster, so every MLB team has far more players to manage on a whole.

And my Yankees/Cubs posts was the second most ridiculous thing posted. Someone chimed in earlier with an ever so insightful comment that no one watched baseball anymore, figured I might as well state something as ridiculous while the thread remained civil :r

As far as the salary talks, it's just a point to show that the sport is doing well. The MLB operates much differently than the NFL, the fact that they are still able to be successful without having to resort to the NFLs brand of sports socialism is a pretty worthy achievement since most other sports in this country seem to be going down that road unfortunately. All sports are a business and they should operate like any other business in this country imho. If a team or league can't cut it, it should fail :2

There was one of these ;) after it, so yours still stands as the silliest.;)

[Starscream]

But yet it appears that several teams own best interest is the bottom line in the accountant's ledger, not in the win/loss column. How is that good for the league?

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:

It's only a few teams. Again, what right does the league have to tell a team like the pirates how to run their organization? Fans keep coming, thats what's important. As long as ticket sales are there, merchandise sells, and people watch on TV, what does it matter? So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care. The team is still profitable, which is good right? Why would the league complain as long as they are turning a profit and not on life support.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.

[Starscream]

The title of this thread should be NFL Vs MLB. How did that happen LOL.



It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.:tu

[Stephen]

Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers. The Panthers especially. Jerry Richardson acted out of his own self interest this past season in preparation for the lockout. Made big cuts, hurt our competitiveness, but it set him up nicely in case there is no NFL this season. That's not just a baseball issue. He's not as cheap as the Pirates, but that's still cheap. See the quote below:
I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-richardsonmanning021311)) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).
There are always exceptions to the rule, but as long as they are selling merchandise and bringing in fans, then it is good for baseball. Now, if all the teams acted like the Pirates, then it would not be good for baseball, but remember they are (along with a few other teams) the exception to the rule, just like the NFL has exceptions too.
What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

[Stephen]

It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.:tu
:tpd:

[chippewastud79]

No, that's not what you did. You ignored a good percentage of their monies received because, well, actually I don't know why you did that. But you did.

Because you said salary vs. salary, not salary vs. salary plus signing bonuses, roster bonuses and player incentives. And like I said all of that money wasn't recieved by those players because at least 8 of them were not on the roster. Its not a big deal, just comparing apples to apples, your contention that they make the same or more is flawed. ;)

[chippewastud79]

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-richardsonmanning021311)) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).

What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that. :tu

[chippewastud79]

It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.:tu

I believe the discussion started when it was said that MLB players make significantly more money than their NFL counterparts, despite being the most popular sport in America. :tu

[Stephen]

Because you said salary vs. salary, not salary vs. salary plus signing bonuses, roster bonuses and player incentives.
Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one last time, slower still...I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squadwould be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player
Did you see? If not, I'll break it down again...

top 25 paid players
You comparing salary vs. salary is a strawman set up by yourself to knock it down. The only time I even used the word, "salary" is when I directly quoted the source (USA Today page here (http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/saints/salaries)) which included all bonuses earned for total compensation.
And like I said all of that money wasn't recieved by those players because at least 8 of them were not on the roster. Its not a big deal, just comparing apples to apples, your contention that they make the same or more is flawed. ;)
Pleae tell me which eight players out of the top twenty five were no longer on the Saints roster...

[Stephen]

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that. :tu
Does reading comprehension escape you? Seriously man...
So what if the Pirates or Royals ownership pockets most of the money, the fan base doesn't care.
No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.
Ask the Bengals, Lions, and Panthers.
...his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).
That should about bring you up to speed. Now you can get back to constructing strawmen...;)

[VirtualSmitty]

(Playing Devil's Advocate) What right then does MLB have to tell the Red Sox, Yankees, Phillies, Mets and Dodgers that they have to give up almost a third of their revenue (last time I checked revenue sharing was at 31%) to prop up these struggling franchises?

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

No offense, but baseball fans don't show up to root for the accountants. We want to see a semblance of a competitive team on the field.

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despite putting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.

[Stephen]

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.
If they're not struggling, why share revenue?
Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despiteputting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.
Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"

[VirtualSmitty]

If they're not struggling, why share revenue?

Baseballs attempt to give mid and small market teams a better chance to stay competive with large markets without capping salaries. Team that do use it properly use it to good effect. Revenue sharing itself isn't enough to save a team running in the red, look at the Expos. The Marlins have it toughest in all of baseball finacially, yet they still turn a profit.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"

Absolutely. You'd see a slight increase across the board but it would remain the same mostly. Case in point, the Tampa Bay Rays. Despite winning the AL east (toughest division in baseball) twice in the last three years and making one trip to the WS, their attendance hasn't increased much past where it was when they were a perennial loser. The Pirates have lost some fans, but it took 17 losing seasons to really effect their bottom line. They still draw a crowd larger than either Florida team, despite being significantly worse.

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

[Starscream]

Absolutely. You'd see a slight increase across the board but it would remain the same mostly. Case in point, the Tampa Bay Rays. Despite winning the AL east (toughest division in baseball) twice in the last three years and making one trip to the WS, their attendance hasn't increased much past where it was when they were a perennial loser. The Pirates have lost some fans, but it took 17 losing seasons to really effect their bottom line. They still draw a crowd larger than either Florida team, despite being significantly worse.

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

Tampa and Miami are not baseball towns. There are too many other things to do there rather than attend baseball games. MLB teams don't truly belong in tourist towns IMHO. Yes, I know the Dolphins do well in Miami, but they only play there 8 times a year vs. 81.

So if you take away the Florida teams, I'd say that most winning teams draw decent crowds. I don't have the numbers on that to back it up though.

[VirtualSmitty]

Tampa and Miami are not baseball towns. There are too many other things to do there rather than attend baseball games. MLB teams don't truly belong in tourist towns IMHO. Yes, I know the Dolphins do well in Miami, but they only play there 8 times a year vs. 81.

So if you take away the Florida teams, I'd say that most winning teams draw decent crowds. I don't have the numbers on that to back it up though.

No argument here. My point is that even non winning teams draw crowds. Thats's why I keep bringing up the Pirates/Royals. And if a team draws enough attendance to stay profitable, what really is the problem?

[Starscream]

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.

I know it applies to the Reds. Management put a winning ball club on the field this year, yet ticket sales were only up by a small margin. Their pathetic attempt in the playoffs were sold out though.

[Starscream]

No argument here. My point is that even non winning teams draw crowds. Thats's why I keep bringing up the Pirates/Royals. And if a team draws enough attendance to stay profitable, what really is the problem?

I wasn't trying to argue. I was attempting to support your point.:)

[VirtualSmitty]

I wasn't trying to argue. I was attempting to support your point.:)

I know Andy :tu

To add to what you said, I do think that any team that makes the post season will see attendance spike. But the regular season numbers will be mostly the same, regardless of winning %.

[Bruins Fan]

Now the NFLPA is sending letters to the top prospects to boycott the NFL draft, after one of the proposals is to cap rookie salaries.
I'm sure that's going over big with the guys coming out?

[tx_tuff]

Now the NFLPA is sending letters to the top prospects to boycott the NFL draft, after one of the proposals is to cap rookie salaries.
I'm sure that's going over big with the guys coming out?

Funny thing is the NFLPA wanted a lower cap on the rookies also, they just didn't agree with what to do with the money saved. But I think they agreed on the lockout.

Funny how the NFL players are no longer part of the NFLPA, and in fact the undrafted players would not be anyway. But NFLPA is still running the show? Please!

[Bruins Fan]

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

[tx_tuff]

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

I'm sure finding a network would be the easy part. Even if they do its not the same thing as being at the real draft. If you are a top 10 prospect you would be crazy not to attend the real deal and get to walk across the stage. You only get to do it once. Not far for the NFLPA to ask these guys to do this, the lockout will be over in a few months no mater what but you missed out on a day you should never forget!

[loki]

so the nflpa is asking people who aren't even part of a union that no longer exists to do stuff? at this point I don't care if football ever comes back. ****em all

[chippewastud79]

Funny thing is the NFLPA wanted a lower cap on the rookies also, they just didn't agree with what to do with the money saved. But I think they agreed on the lockout.

Funny how the NFL players are no longer part of the NFLPA, and in fact the undrafted players would not be anyway. But NFLPA is still running the show? Please!

Players don't hold a lot of power in this whole process. Sadly the people who exploit them do. Encouraging the college players to not attend the draft is slightly pointless as the draft will go on regardless. Without free-agency it makes the draft even more of a crap shoot. There are a lot of free agents out there and no one knows where they will end up. Once a player is drafted he will have little to do anyways. There won't be a single contact with coaches or negotiations for a contract anyway, so what is the point of having the draft. :hm

[Starscream]

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

So if the NFLPA holds a draft, where do they get drafted to?:confused::confused: Do they come in as free agents?

[loki]

Players don't hold a lot of power in this whole process. Sadly the people who exploit them do. Encouraging the college players to not attend the draft is slightly pointless as the draft will go on regardless. Without free-agency it makes the draft even more of a crap shoot. There are a lot of free agents out there and no one knows where they will end up. Once a player is drafted he will have little to do anyways. There won't be a single contact with coaches or negotiations for a contract anyway, so what is the point of having the draft. :hm
exploiting them? i'll tell ya what, you pay me 58 million and you exploit the hell out of me.:rolleyes:

[Stephen]

Baseballs attempt to give mid and small market teams a better chance to stay competive with large markets without capping salaries.
But doesn't that fly in the face of what you said earlier?
All sports are a business and they should operate like any other business in this country imho. If a team or league can't cut it, it should fail :2
If the Wal-Mart down the road isn't making any money, the Wal-Mart that is successful out by the interstate isn't going to cut them in on the action.
(Devil's Advocate off)

I'll let you have the last word to close the chapter on this issue; I'm a socialist like that.:D

[chippewastud79]

exploiting them? i'll tell ya what, you pay me 58 million and you exploit the hell out of me.:rolleyes:

Whether people want to agree with the priciple or not, the players make far more money for the owners than they are compensated for. Ticket prices and revenues continue to rise and players salary have not kept up. Now the owners complain that they need more money to build new stadiums (paid for by tax money :rolleyes: and giving them the ability to raise prices on everything) and to keep from taking a loss. Owners won't show their books to show the deficit that they have, something has to give. :hm Without the players, there is no product. :2

[loki]

Whether people want to agree with the priciple or not, the players make far more money for the owners than they are compensated for. Ticket prices and revenues continue to rise and players salary have not kept up. Now the owners complain that they need more money to build new stadiums (paid for by tax money :rolleyes: and giving them the ability to raise prices on everything) and to keep from taking a loss. Owners won't show their books to show the deficit that they have, something has to give. :hm Without the players, there is no product. :2

and i make more money for my boss then i'm compensated for...this is not their unique and special situation it's the way of the world.

also, without the fans there is no league

[chippewastud79]

and i make more money for my boss then i'm compensated for...this is not their unique and special situation it's the way of the world.

Well when people start paying millions and billions of dollars to show up to watch teachers in the class room or fire fighters fight a fire or my wife crunch numbers, then everyone else might have a bit more bargaining power. I'm not saying its right, its just the way people pay to watch these guys play. :2

Its the owners who are saying they don't make enough money, and if they don't get more, everyone else is without a job and they will keep all the revenue. The lockout works out immensely well for the owners, they still have TV contracts and such that will get paid regardless and they won't have to pay a single dollar of salary to players or anyone else for that matter. Nothing like bringing in revenue with no overhead. :hm

[chippewastud79]

also, without the fans there is no league

The fans will be there whenever it is settled. And they will pay the ticket prices the owners demand and buy merchandise and beer at those games. Television contracts aren't going to be dropped like they were for hockey :sad. Unlike any other sport, football has the fan base to absorb owners stupidity for now (unfortunately the owners know this). Fans will pay money for teams who meddle in obscurity for years, a few months of this won't lose enough fans to effect the league as a whole. If there is a full season lockout (unlikely), then you may see a decline in viewership, but it will rebound much faster than hockey or baseball suffered during their labor disputes. :2

[VirtualSmitty]

But doesn't that fly in the face of what you said earlier?

If the Wal-Mart down the road isn't making any money, the Wal-Mart that is successful out by the interstate isn't going to cut them in on the action.
(Devil's Advocate off)

I'll let you have the last word to close the chapter on this issue; I'm a socialist like that.:D

How so? The part where I said I didn't care much revenue sharing lol.

Wal-Mart vs Wal-Mart analogy doesn't work, same chain. Wal-Mart vs any other business sure. If Wal-Mart forces a local store out of business, they don't share their profits to keep them around for competition :r

No one is calling you a socialist Stephen, just the NFL ;):D:r

[Starscream]

So if the NFLPA holds a draft, where do they get drafted to?:confused::confused: Do they come in as free agents?

Anybody answer this question?

[Bruins Fan]

Anybody answer this question?
That's a good question,they have no contract so all agreements should be void and null.
There is talk of football being played without a agreement,if so what about the franchise tag?
They can't have it both ways.

[Stephen]

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?

So if the NFLPA holds a draft, where do they get drafted to?:confused::confused: Do they come in as free agents?

Anybody answer this question?
From my understanding I don't think it's going to be a, "different" draft per se, but instead of the top prospects going up on stage and getting his picture taken with Commissioner Goodell, they'll be at another venue.

From the article: (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6216135&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_6216135)The NFL Players Association is putting into place a plan that would prevent each top college prospect from attending next month's draft in New York, according to multiple league sources. The NFLPA already has contacted 17 top prospects who ordinarily would have received an invitation to attend the draft and informed them not to go.


Later Monday, a source said the edict is a recommendation, not an explicit order not to attend the draft. The source said the union plans to give the prospects the "same experience down the street."

[Starscream]

What experience would that be? If they don't attend the NFL draft, then they won't get drafted by a team. If they are not on a team, then they do not have the opportunity to play. I don't get it.:confused:

[Stephen]

What experience would that be? If they don't attend the NFL draft, then they won't get drafted by a team. If they are not on a team, then they do not have the opportunity to play. I don't get it.:confused:
:confused: You don't have to be in attendance to be drafted, Andy. Literally hundreds of players every single year are doing their own thing on draft day instead of sitting in the, "green room." One of the cooler stories (http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/professional/article_18838568-4cc3-5b93-bb65-a191de962b40.html) I remember is Joe Thomas going fishing with his Dad the day of the draft rather than surrounding himself with all the hooplah.

[Starscream]

:confused: You don't have to be in attendance to be drafted, Andy. Literally hundreds of players every single year are doing their own thing on draft day instead of sitting in the, "green room." One of the cooler stories (http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/professional/article_18838568-4cc3-5b93-bb65-a191de962b40.html) I remember is Joe Thomas going fishing with his Dad the day of the draft rather than surrounding himself with all the hooplah.

So they would be at another venue, but still be in the NFL draft.:tu Gotcha.

[Stephen]

So they would be at another venue, but still be in the NFL draft.:tu Gotcha.
Correct.