Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Baseball Tonight? Not A Snowball's chance....

sl5

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   djlong

djlong

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,265 posts
  • LocationNew Hampshire
Joined: Jul 08, 2002

Posted 18 October 2009 - 06:13 PM

The six teams i would eliminate are,the Marlins,Rays,Nationals,Padres,Mariners and Royals.I did some research and compared the overall populated of the country with the attendance and found a higher percentage of the population attended the games in the "good ole days"then what they do now.Also during that era people of color weren't allowed too play MLB the majority of time,and therefore not many would attend games.


Did you factor in the number of other major sports teams or the success of those teams for each city? I.e., the Green Bay Packers are the only game in town, whereas you have the Marlins, Heat, Panthers and Dolphins competing for the Miami sports dollar.

So you would eliminate PROFITABLE teams? What's more, a little research says you'd knock off 4 World Champions, 3 League Champions, 12 Division Champions and a Wild Card (cumulative of those teams since 1976)

I mean, checking some attendance figures, the Expos were between 2nd and 4th in the league from 1977-1983. As the Nationals, you have a team in shables that still drew 23,000 per game this year.

The Marlins? Their attendance problems are the owners (fire sale your players and you won't draw squat) and the ballpark (which is being replaced).

The Rays? Average attendance up 6,000 from two years ago.

The Padres? They were doing well over 30,000 per game before this year's fire sale.

The Mariners? They're mid-pack in the AL with 27,000 per game.

The Royals? Ok, their glory years had them at or slightly under 30,000 per game. But they ARE up 3,000 per game this past year even with a worse record than 2008 and a worse economy - amazing what spending money on making the ballpark nicer can do.

Here's a gentle reminder of perspective. The 1990 Yankees averaged 21,589. In 1972 it was 12,000. Even during the Mantle/Maris chase of 1961 it was only 21,500 - and that was LONG after integration so you can't blame that.

Those same years for the Mets were 33,738 [1990], 27,361 [1972] and 11,532 in their inagural year of 1962 (since they weren't around in '61)

And my Red Sox? 1965 averaged barely over 8,000 per game. In 1990 the average was over 31,000 - almost 10,000 more than the Yankees that year in a ballpark with 2/3 the capacity.

The idea of contracting a team averaging 3 times more than "established" teams did in the years when those "established" teams had far less competition just seems wrong when you look at the historical perspective.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't the Twins make your list when they (and the Expos) were on MLB's own proposed contraction list not that many years ago?

...Ads Help To Support This Site...




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sl5

Protected By... spam firewall...And...