NFL

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

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.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

(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.

Originally Posted by Stephen

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]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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]

Originally Posted by Stephen

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.

Originally Posted by Stephen

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]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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]

Originally Posted by Starscream

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]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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?

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

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

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.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

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.

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

No one is calling you a socialist Stephen, just the NFL