Big markets, playoffs and self fulfilling prophecies.

[Thurston Fluff]

It always bothered me that conventional wisdom says having the Yankees, Red Sox or other large market teams in the World Series was not only good for the ratings but baseball as a whole. It seems as though somehow having a Rays, Brewers World Series wouldn't interest anyone outside of Wisconsin or Florida. I realize the ratings back up that theory but my belief is that is a self fulfilling prophecy. I also think it's a self defeating one. Yes the ratings will be larger due to the city size but if they actaully marketed the entire league they may find people from Wisconsin or Chicago are as, if not more, interested in seeing the Rays play as the Yankees.

Doesn't it seem logical if every team got the exposure all teams in football get eventually you would get the entire nation interested in the league not just their team? Then the ratings may even out from big market to small. If that happens the whole game, especially the playoffs, would get a huge ratings boost. Perhaps even set records in a year where the Yankees or Red Sox aren't in them. I always felt good story lines and interesting teams went much further than the city size. Those story lines come naturally from the teams not from the size of their market.

After seeing the ratings for the Saints and Colts I have to wonder if maybe baseball and the media have it wrong and are hurting baseball by continuing to program based off the size matters belief. It might be more watched if baseball actually started to showcase all their teams nationally all year instead of 40% Yankees, 40% Red Sox and 20% scraps for all the rest of the teams.

If I was commissioner I think the first thing I would do is set up some sort of system to get all teams equal nationally telivised games. Do everything I could to gain national exposure for all the teams. I'd be willing to bet in a couple years of equal exposure baseball would become more of a national game again instead of the provincial, I only care about my team, game it has become. After all Indy and New Orleans aren't even major league cites and they seem to do all right in national ratings.

 

Sorry for the rant but this has bugged me for quite a few years. There is no reason baseball playoffs aren't as popular as football other than nobody outside of their region knows much about many of the teams thus are not interested in them. The teams they do know about they are bored of. Why wouldn't they be? It's the same story told over and over again.

[Invader3K]

You are right to an extent, and you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said again and again on here.

 

Really, they are trying though, I think. If you watch MLB Network, they do a pretty good job of covering all 30 teams. You see games from all the different divisions during the season. If you're just watching ESPN, you're going to get a pretty heavy East Coast bias, which is just the reality.

 

Ultimately there has to be more parity between the big market and small market clubs, otherwise the Yankees and Red Sox of the world will keep making the World Series regardless, and hence continue getting the brunt of the media coverage.

[Patrick425]

MLB network on XM can be very close to ESPN at times. They will drone on and on about the Yankees bullben or some other mondane issue related to the Yankess that they would not waste 2 seconds on with a small market team. I called them once and complained about this. One of there comments to me was actually that a majority of their listeners are from the East Coast, which is true judging by the calls they get. However, I thought the same thing. Maybe if they spent more time on other teams they would get more listeners from other parts of the country.

[Invader3K]

That's a shame to hear. I had an XM subscription up until a couple years ago (the power plug in my car went out, so I couldn't listen while commuting anymore, and it wasn't worth fixing at that point, plus I hated the music selection and sound quality once they merged with Sirius), and it seemed like they were more balanced back then. I used to love Dibble and Kennedy on "The Show" in the afternoons, but then they stupidly broke them up (probably due to budget cuts, I think). They also got rid of Charlie Steiner, who seemed to talk about the different teams quite often.

[rluzinski]

"Ultimately there has to be more parity between the big market and small market clubs, otherwise the Yankees and Red Sox of the world will keep making the World Series regardless, and hence continue getting the brunt of the media coverage. "

 

I agree. MLB could do a better job of promoting all their teams but fans aren't stupid. At the start of any season, a third of the league probably has less than a 5% chance of making the post season. How do you promote that?

[Patrick425]

Invader3K[/b]]That's a shame to hear. I had an XM subscription up until a couple years ago (the power plug in my car went out, so I couldn't listen while commuting anymore, and it wasn't worth fixing at that point, plus I hated the music selection and sound quality once they merged with Sirius), and it seemed like they were more balanced back then. I used to love Dibble and Kennedy on "The Show" in the afternoons, but then they stupidly broke them up (probably due to budget cuts, I think). They also got rid of Charlie Steiner, who seemed to talk about the different teams quite often.

Not to get too off topic, but I have a love/hate attitude towards Dibble. Sometimes he can be very entertaining, but other times his views are just oversimplistic. The other day he was talking about how baseball is not broken and he was basically against any further form of revenue sharing. Five minutes later he was talking about guys like Texiera, Sabatihia, Fielder, and even Mauer...stating that he doesn't blame (or would not blame) any guys like this for wanting to go play with a big market club that can afford to pay them and still be competitive instead of staying on a team that would have to pay them over a 1/4 of their total payroll and wouldn't have any money to build a lineup around them. I don't blame them either, but how can you say that and then also claim that baseball isn't broken?

 

His argument against revenue sharing is that teams that are getting it are not using it. Other than 1 or 2 teams, I would like to see proof of this. Giving a small market team10, 20 or 30 million is not suddenly going to raise their payroll to $125 million, or even $100 million, or $90 million, or $80 million for that matter.

 

 

[Invader3K]

I believe I read on this forum that the teams in the top 10 of payroll have a roughly 75% chance of making the playoffs, where the other 20 only have about a 25% chance of making the playoffs. You are probably basically right that a third of league maybe only has a 5% chance.

 

That's the big difference in the NFL. At the beginning of any season, I'd say you have only a very small handful of teams with virtually no shot at making the playoffs, and mainly these are due to mismanagement (Raiders, Redskins), or being in obvious rebuild mode (Lions, Bucaneers). Of course, the difference is they have more playoff spots in the NFL, too.

[Ennder]

I was at a party of over 40 people for the Super Bowl and maybe 4 or 5 actually cared about the game. The ratings of any given super bowl really have no meaning in comparison to the teams playing, it has turned into a national holiday more or less and only a small percentage of those watching care about the football.

 

That's the big difference in the NFL. At the beginning of any season,

I'd say you have only a very small handful of teams with virtually no

shot at making the playoffs

 

This is true but if you take an honest look at the sports a large chunk of this is just in the formatting of the sport itself. If baseball had a 16 game season about 90% of the teams would have a shot at the playoffs too. The NFL has built in parity just because of the tiny schedule if nothing else. Out of all the major sports I'd say it is hardest to luck into the playoffs in MLB. They could probably promote parity by reducing the numbers of games played as much as by fixing the top payroll teams(which does need work for sure).

[logan82]

Cut the season in baseball in half and we would have made the playoffs last year.

[snyttri]

Patrick425 wrote:

His argument against revenue sharing is that teams that are getting it are not using it. Other than 1 or 2 teams, I would like to see proof of this.

http://www.bizofbaseball....editorials&Itemid=39

Are Some MLB Teams Profiting While Living on Welfare? Written by Maury Brown Thursday, 03 December 2009 Based on data from Forbes from 2002 to the most recent figures released in 2009, clubs that receive the most in revenue-sharing have seen profits in most, if not all years: Forbes Valuations (By Operating Income, in Millions) Club 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 TOTAL Rays 29.4 29.7 20.2 20.3 27.2 7.5 1.4 -6.1 129.6 Pirates 15.9 17.6 25.3 21.9 12.2 -0.3 -1.6 9.5 100.5 A's 26.2 17.6 14.5 16 5.9 11.2 1.4 6.8 99.6 Marlins 43.7 35.6 43.3 -11.9 3 -11.6 -14 1.4 89.5 Royals 9 7.4 8.4 20.8 3 6.6 -11.2 2.2 46.2

[jerichoholicninja]

I think the biggest reason for parity in the NFL is because of injuries. Injuries are frequent and I don't think that NFL teams have the depth that you do in baseball. Good quality QB and O Linemen are few and far between and if you lose one it really hurts your team. Heck, if you lose your starting QB you've pretty much lost the season. The playoff teams are usually the healthiest.

[TooLiveBrew]

Just read a post at another fan forum that I know people will just absolutely love. In a thread titled, "Does it matter that the Yankees keep buying pennants?":

I don't think anyone should have to apologize for "buying a championship." Let's face it, all teams -- ALL teams -- charge every single penny they think they can for everything. Why are Marlins tickets less than Yankee tickets? Because the Marlins think that if they charged anymore, the decrease in sales would lead to an overall decrease in profit. That's it. Not one single team has lower prices out of the goodness of their heart -- not one. Every single team tries to maximize profits always.

 

So then why do Yankee tickets cost so much more than other tickets? Very simply, because we as a fan base are willing to spend much more on our team than other fans are willing to spend on their teams. Does that make us better fans? I think so. Does that make us more deserving of a championship team than those other fans? I think so.

Excuse me while I vomit

[Invader3K]

There's that cliche New York fan sense of entitlement for you.

[nate82]

So then why do Yankee tickets cost so much more than other tickets? Very simply, because we as a fan base are willing to spend much more on our team than other fans are willing to spend on their teams. Does that make us better fans? I think so. Does that make us more deserving of a championship team than those other fans? I think so.

Excuse me while I vomit

What I bolded is somewhat correct the last part is just the sense of entitlement. The demand for Yankees tickets is obviously higher than that of the demand for Marlins tickets so the Yankees can charge a higher price for their tickets but even the Yankees have to lower their ticket prices as could be seen earlier in the year when there were a lot of empty seats behind home plate because the price was just way to high and that had to be adjusted. Even the Yankees fans will not pay prices they believe are over and beyond what they should be paying so there is a midpoint where the fans will not pay those prices.

 

Also ticket sales has very little to do with team payroll for the Yankees. The Yankees media revenue nearly pays for all of its team payroll.

[DatHoser]

Migod, what a myopic POV. This is MLB, not NYLB.

 

Back on target. One thing the NFL does with their tv contract is require that all teams make at least one "off-time" appearance. While this wouldn't translate equally in MLB (or even NYLBhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif), there should be a way to have every team be showcased on a prime slot - and I'm not talking about KC finally getting on Sunday Night Baseball only to play NY or Bos.

 

Also, the parity in the NFL owes a great deal to revenue sharing, again something that doesn't translate equally to MLB. The reason it doesn't is due to the disparaging views of each league. The NFL is viewed as the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The MLB view is that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Once that viewpoint is dismissed and the league as a whole is viewed as the business, then the buying of playoffs will become a thing of the past. Sadly, I don't think this will happen in my lifetime.

[MJLiverock]

So by that logic I guess hot dogs are more popular in NY because the last time I was there I paid like $6 for a crappy street vendor dog that costs about $3 in Madison. They must love hotel rooms there as well because my closet sized room at the Sheraton in Manhattan was just under $400/night.

 

The pure lack of understandiing of economics in these arguements baffles me sometimes. I would argue back that the Yankess must have terrible fans because they have a metro area that is 15x the size of place like Milwaukee yet there were empty seats at games. For a team like the Brewers to draw 3 million fans with a metro area of a million people means on averge each person has a go to to 3 games. For the Yankees to draw 3 million fans only about a quarter of the people even have to go to one game.

[owbc]

That quote is exactly why I hate the Yankees.

The current revenue sharing system is not the answer. The small market teams are not always spending their money, which will make an increase less likely in the next CBA. Furthermore, as a Brewers fan, I do not want the Pirates to get extra money, it will only help bring them up to our level and take wins away from us. Without the Pirates, our playoff drought is still alive. If they had gotten additional money from the Yankees in 2008 and actually spent it, it could have cost the Brewers the playoffs. The top teams are not really affected by the revenue sharing and will continue to spend to make the playoffs. The Brewers are already at their spending max and are only hindered by the teams below them getting help. The system is flawed and it will be good for the game to completely eliminate it. Teams should not be rewarded for losing, bad attendance, or bad management. The Brewers are being punished for their success.

[AJAY]

Not to get too off topic, but I have a love/hate attitude towards

Dibble.

My blood pressure goes up every time I hear Rob Dibble spew his garbage on XM Radio. So many times I have almost wanted to call into the show and just go off on him. It really infuriates me how current and former players think about things and how they care so little for their product or their paying customers. It's shameful. I really wish the fans had a union too.

 

One of the problems is that teams are now profitable again and some owners don't want to mess with that. Some owners don't care about competitive balance or integrity as long as they are making money. In fact, I read somewhere that baseball is now paying the least percentage of their revenues to their players compared to other sports. So I think there are too many owners who are content with the way things are. Since fans are not stock-holders, we obviously care about other things such as the quality, intergrity, and fairness of the product.

 

I also find it funny how we are always being told that if small-market teams run their business well and make smart decisions, they can compete. If that is true, why do players still fight for every dollar? Please tell Scott Boras that if Prince Fielder manages his money well and makes good financial decisions, he doesn't need the extra millions of dollars which Boston or NY will throw at him. He should be just fine taking less to stay with the Brewers.

 

After all, they always claim it's not how much money you have, but how you use it . .. . right??

 

Why doesn't this ever apply to them too?

[snyttri]

One of the problems is that teams are now profitable again and some owners don't want to mess with that.

MLB was profitable even when the owners said it wasn't.

[Invader3K]

The pure lack of understanding of economics in these arguments baffles me sometimes. I would argue back that the Yankees must have terrible fans because they have a metro area that is 15x the size of place like Milwaukee yet there were empty seats at games. For a team like the Brewers to draw 3 million fans with a metro area of a million people means on averge each person has a go to to 3 games. For the Yankees to draw 3 million fans only about a quarter of the people even have to go to one game.

You should post exactly this in that other forum. I bet that would get them going.

[TooLiveBrew]

So by that logic I guess hot dogs are more popular in NY because the last time I was there I paid like $6 for a crappy street vendor dog that costs about $3 in Madison.

 

No -- they just love hot dogs more than Madisonians, and deserve them more!

EDIT: And for the record, I responded with some eye-rolling at that ridiculous post on the Yankees forum. To the credit of the rest of the posters there, no one has taken issue with my post.

[hawing]

obsessedwithbrewcrew wrote:

 

Without the Pirates, our playoff drought is still alive. If they had gotten additional money from the Yankees in 2008 and actually spent it, it could have cost the Brewers the playoffs.

I know what you're saying, but I can't help but want to insert the word "wisely" after "spent it." My apologies; I've enjoyed my trips to Pittsburgh and PNC Park is probably my second favorite facility behind MP.

 

If I comment much more on the lead topic, or that stomach turning quote from Entitlement Man, I'll be too riled up to get to sleep tonight.

[Ennder]

Also, the parity in the NFL owes a great deal to revenue sharing,

 

A lot of the parity has nothing to do with revenue sharing. The good teams pay less for players and the bad teams have to overpay anyone to play for them. The big market teams also pay less for players as they know they can get additional funds from endorsements. The short schedule and lack of depth for injuries have more to do with parity in the NFL than the cap and revenue sharing. If baseball moved to a 40 game schedule you'd have parity in baseball as well because even bad teams can get off to a hot start.

[danzig6767]

Also, the parity in the NFL owes a great deal to revenue sharing,

 

A lot of the parity has nothing to do with revenue sharing. The good teams pay less for players and the bad teams have to overpay anyone to play for them. The big market teams also pay less for players as they know they can get additional funds from endorsements. The short schedule and lack of depth for injuries have more to do with parity in the NFL than the cap and revenue sharing. If baseball moved to a 40 game schedule you'd have parity in baseball as well because even bad teams can get off to a hot start.

Everything you say has merit, but the reality is most NFL teams can afford to resign their young players when they become free agents and sometimes even sign other teams free agents, including small market teams. That's not realistic in baseball's economic system of much more limited revenue sharing.

 

Green Bay is the smallest market in all of professional sports. Yet, in the last two years signed arguably one of the most valuable commodities in the game, an extremely talented young QB named Aaron Rodgers to a 6yr extension and resigned Jennings also long term. I can't remember the last high quality young player about to reach free agency that the Packers really wanted to keep, but weren't able to for financial reasons. If Prince Fielder was a Packer, fans wouldn't have to fear that the team couldn't afford to keep him from big market franchises. The only way Prince would leave was a desire to play elsewhere, not because Packers revenues couldn't support paying him. Clay Matthews had a breakout rookie year. So long as the new NFL CBA doesn't change things drastically, i have zero fear that if Clay becomes a star OLB that the team won't be able to afford him as he nears free agency.

 

I can live with the fact that most small market MLB teams can't be prime shoppers in free agency. That's fine. My by far biggest peeve is how most small market teams fans almost always have to start wondering/fearing when they will have trade away their young stars if they have one as they get say 2-3 years from free agency. NFL fans rarely ever have to go through that crap if they have a young budding star like a Fielder because their franchise will have the revenues to pay out a huge contract. Phillip Rivers and Rodgers were the equivalent to young ace starting pitchers in baseball, yet it wasn't even big news in the league that they signed 6yr extensions to stay in Green Bay/San Diego because small market football franchises in the NFL have enough revenues to keep stars all the time. Nothing else i think demoralizes MLB small market fan bases like developing stud young players, but knowing that once years 4-5 of their careers roll around, the inevitable trade talking starts because those fans know their franchise doesn't have the revenues to hand out 100 plus million dollar contracts like the big markets can. Plus, the added frustration that not only can big markets take away their young stars, big market fans never have to face the same fears when they develop a young stud. In today's baseball, Robin Yount would have become a Yankee or Red Sox before he ever got to lead the Brewers to a World Series and become a Wisconsin legend who went into the HOF as a Brewer.

[Invader3K]

danzig hits the nail on the head there. It's like big market fans get to enjoy a much higher level of fan experience than us small market fans. It's also plain easier to be a fan of a large market team (they get to keep their stars longer, get to sign more and better free agents, more media coverage, much higher chance at making the playoffs, etc). We're basically second class citizens in the world of MLB, and that just plain out and out sucks.

 

That said, like I've said elsewhere, I've basically accepted the fact that the Brewers will probably never win a World Series in my lifetime, unless the economics of the game change dramatically. It is just too much of a long shot to dream of.