 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Can Baseball survive
ironhorse2ko
Can Baseball survive
March 24, 2007 at 04:43AM View BBCode
To be more exact will baseball survive as a sport here in America, and for how long? Forget about steriods, that's bad enough and damaging to the sport and whatever integerity it had (or still has), I'm thinking long term. To the casual fan, Baseball is a distant 3rd to Basketball, and football- it's beginning to be thought of on the level of hockey now here in N.America; nobody gives a crap it seems, only those that actually follow the sport.
Mattalonsas
Just take a look at the revenues.
March 24, 2007 at 05:38AM View BBCode
Baseball is more popular than basketball on the professional level and its far above hockey, soccer, and all the other sports that have pro leagues that havn't gone under yet.Just take a look at the revenues.
sycophantman
March 24, 2007 at 10:00AM View BBCode
This is a fantasy baseball site ironhorse, if you are looking for someone here to agree with you, I fear you won't have much luck...
shutout1277
March 24, 2007 at 01:24PM View BBCode
Baseball is a distant 3rd to basketball?? It has possibly fallen behind football. Possibly. But basketball??:lol:
Bones2484
March 24, 2007 at 02:44PM View BBCode
Same level as hockey??? Where are you pulling this from?
lvnwrth
Rectal cavity?
March 24, 2007 at 04:14PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Bones2484
Same level as hockey??? Where are you pulling this from?
Rectal cavity?
barterer2002
March 24, 2007 at 04:26PM View BBCode
But hey, if Ironhorse says that more people want to watch basketball than baseball he must be right. That's why we have 15,000 seat baseball stadiums and 50,000 seat basketball arenas.
lvnwrth
I don't think the question is even relevant for hockey, if Bettman can just accept hockey for what it is. He can't recreate the NBA miracle of his mentor and idol, David Stern.
Stern was able to market a handful of great players...Johnson, Bird, Irving; and a few great teams...Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, and salvage a league that was headed straight for obscurity in the late 1970's. If you are old enough, think back. You NEVER saw an NBA game on network TV that didn't involve one of those three teams. Those guys laid the foundation, and then Jordan came along, with some assists from guys like Olajowan, the built on what they inherited.
Hockey had the same kind of players in the 1980's...guy's who were bigger than the game...Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier...and they couldn't capitalize by marketing those guys. They missed their window of opportunity. Now they're on the Outdoor Life Network! :lol::lol:
But, with their new labor agreement in place that assures cost certainty to the owners...at least as a percentage of revenue...the NBA should be able to establish themselves as the clear #4 league in North American professional sports.
Hockey is still a huge hit MOST of the places it is played. Last month they set a league record for average attendance in the month of February. Their overall average attendance this year is the second highest in history...over 17,000 per game. The best year, you ask? Last year. The league overall averages nearly 93% of capacity for each game. Only the NFL does better. If baseball did as well, every team would draw over three million fans.
By contrast, the NBA is averaging 17,691 this year. That's only about 500 more fans per game than the NHL. But because all the shared venues will seat more for hockey than for basketball, the percentage of capacity is higher for hockey.
In those markets where there is both and NBA and and NHL franchise, and they play in the same arena, the NHL does surprisingly well in drawing to capacity:
The Avalanche (97.9) do better than the Nuggets (83.6) in Denver.
The Rangers (100) do better than the Knicks (88.7)
The Flyers (98.7) do better than the 76ers (74.1)
The Maple Leafs (100) do better than the Raptors (87.4)
The NBA's Nets, Celtics, Wizards, Bulls, Lakers/Clippers CRUSH the NHL's Devils, Bruins, Capitals, Blackhawks, Kings in New Jersey, Boston, Washington, Chicago, LA, respectively...by margins ranging from 11 (Boston, LA) to 34 (Chicago) percent.
The Mavericks (100) do better than the Stars (95.2), but the NHL doesn't get embarrassed in the Dallas market. And in Atlanta, it's a virtual tie...NBA Hawks 84.6, NHL Thrashers 84.4.
In those cities where there are teams in both leagues, but each has their own arena, the results are these:
Detroit: NHL Red Wings (100) and NBA Pistons (100), making Detroit the only city where both franchises AVERAGE a sellout.
Minnesota: NHL Wild destroy the NBA T-wolves, 100 to 87.2.
Phoenix: NBA Suns embarass the NHL Coyotes, 96.8 to 78.3.
Miami: NBA Heat easily outdraw the NHL Panthers, 100 to 76.2.
SF Bay Area: NHL Sharks (98.8) enjoy a six-point advantage over the NBA Warriors (92.3).
The biggest difference between the two leagues is not popularity in the cities where the teams play. The difference is that the NHL is still nearly totally dependent on gate receipts and other game-day revenues (concessions, parking, memorabilia), while the NBA could play to 50% capacity (or less) and still turn a profit from their national media contracts with the various networks.
Here's a good study in contrast: The NBA presently has its next great young player (James) who draws comparisons to the game's greatest ever (Jordan). Go ANYWHERE in the United States, and you can find kids wearing Lebron James jerseys. And he plays in Cleveland...not exactly a mega media market.
The NHL presently has its next great young player (Sid Crosby) who draws comparisons to the game's greatest ever (Gretzky). Go ANYWHERE in the United States outside Pittsburgh and you will find NO KIDS wearing a Sidney Crosby sweater. He plays a few hundred miles east of James, in Pittsburgh...also not exactly a mega media market.
Most US television viewers have never played hockey. They don't know the rules. They don't know a hip check from a dinner check, and they think icing goes on birthday cakes. And because of the speed at which the game is played, its tough to sit in a recliner, beer in hand, and follow a game. It's just not a good TV sport.
March 24, 2007 at 05:25PM View BBCode
Originally posted by turkob
this question is relevant for hockey, not for baseball
I don't think the question is even relevant for hockey, if Bettman can just accept hockey for what it is. He can't recreate the NBA miracle of his mentor and idol, David Stern.
Stern was able to market a handful of great players...Johnson, Bird, Irving; and a few great teams...Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, and salvage a league that was headed straight for obscurity in the late 1970's. If you are old enough, think back. You NEVER saw an NBA game on network TV that didn't involve one of those three teams. Those guys laid the foundation, and then Jordan came along, with some assists from guys like Olajowan, the built on what they inherited.
Hockey had the same kind of players in the 1980's...guy's who were bigger than the game...Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier...and they couldn't capitalize by marketing those guys. They missed their window of opportunity. Now they're on the Outdoor Life Network! :lol::lol:
But, with their new labor agreement in place that assures cost certainty to the owners...at least as a percentage of revenue...the NBA should be able to establish themselves as the clear #4 league in North American professional sports.
Hockey is still a huge hit MOST of the places it is played. Last month they set a league record for average attendance in the month of February. Their overall average attendance this year is the second highest in history...over 17,000 per game. The best year, you ask? Last year. The league overall averages nearly 93% of capacity for each game. Only the NFL does better. If baseball did as well, every team would draw over three million fans.
By contrast, the NBA is averaging 17,691 this year. That's only about 500 more fans per game than the NHL. But because all the shared venues will seat more for hockey than for basketball, the percentage of capacity is higher for hockey.
In those markets where there is both and NBA and and NHL franchise, and they play in the same arena, the NHL does surprisingly well in drawing to capacity:
The Avalanche (97.9) do better than the Nuggets (83.6) in Denver.
The Rangers (100) do better than the Knicks (88.7)
The Flyers (98.7) do better than the 76ers (74.1)
The Maple Leafs (100) do better than the Raptors (87.4)
The NBA's Nets, Celtics, Wizards, Bulls, Lakers/Clippers CRUSH the NHL's Devils, Bruins, Capitals, Blackhawks, Kings in New Jersey, Boston, Washington, Chicago, LA, respectively...by margins ranging from 11 (Boston, LA) to 34 (Chicago) percent.
The Mavericks (100) do better than the Stars (95.2), but the NHL doesn't get embarrassed in the Dallas market. And in Atlanta, it's a virtual tie...NBA Hawks 84.6, NHL Thrashers 84.4.
In those cities where there are teams in both leagues, but each has their own arena, the results are these:
Detroit: NHL Red Wings (100) and NBA Pistons (100), making Detroit the only city where both franchises AVERAGE a sellout.
Minnesota: NHL Wild destroy the NBA T-wolves, 100 to 87.2.
Phoenix: NBA Suns embarass the NHL Coyotes, 96.8 to 78.3.
Miami: NBA Heat easily outdraw the NHL Panthers, 100 to 76.2.
SF Bay Area: NHL Sharks (98.8) enjoy a six-point advantage over the NBA Warriors (92.3).
The biggest difference between the two leagues is not popularity in the cities where the teams play. The difference is that the NHL is still nearly totally dependent on gate receipts and other game-day revenues (concessions, parking, memorabilia), while the NBA could play to 50% capacity (or less) and still turn a profit from their national media contracts with the various networks.
Here's a good study in contrast: The NBA presently has its next great young player (James) who draws comparisons to the game's greatest ever (Jordan). Go ANYWHERE in the United States, and you can find kids wearing Lebron James jerseys. And he plays in Cleveland...not exactly a mega media market.
The NHL presently has its next great young player (Sid Crosby) who draws comparisons to the game's greatest ever (Gretzky). Go ANYWHERE in the United States outside Pittsburgh and you will find NO KIDS wearing a Sidney Crosby sweater. He plays a few hundred miles east of James, in Pittsburgh...also not exactly a mega media market.
Most US television viewers have never played hockey. They don't know the rules. They don't know a hip check from a dinner check, and they think icing goes on birthday cakes. And because of the speed at which the game is played, its tough to sit in a recliner, beer in hand, and follow a game. It's just not a good TV sport.
indychris3
baseball is not going anywhere either.
March 24, 2007 at 10:42PM View BBCode
nice post lynwrthbaseball is not going anywhere either.
nbn_ckh3
I fear you are right. Start up "Taps."
God...
March 25, 2007 at 03:46AM View BBCode
Originally posted by ironhorse2ko
To be more exact will baseball survive as a sport here in America, and for how long? Forget about steriods, that's bad enough and damaging to the sport and whatever integerity it had (or still has), I'm thinking long term. To the casual fan, Baseball is a distant 3rd to Basketball, and football- it's beginning to be thought of on the level of hockey now here in N.America; nobody gives a crap it seems, only those that actually follow the sport.
I fear you are right. Start up "Taps."
God...
drunkengoat
Basketball and football in America are but fleeting fads. When the dust clears, there'll still be baseball being played, and people will still be interested.
March 25, 2007 at 10:01AM View BBCode
My dad's partner in the firm is one of those argumentative types. But I agree with him on one thing.Basketball and football in America are but fleeting fads. When the dust clears, there'll still be baseball being played, and people will still be interested.
mr1313
March 25, 2007 at 10:15AM View BBCode
There are many different variables that skew attendance numbers for instance in Boston, the Celtics give away 2200 free tickets a game, while the Bruins and the Jacobs (who everyone in Boston can't stand by the way), refuse to give away shit, even though it would seem to be in their best interest to do the same, because they would make more money on concessions, but all in all the fans have supported an inferior product for years in Boston, fans have finally had it with the prices of tickets and the team in general. The Red Sox however are like a religion here, so much so that many fans knowledge of baseball starts and ends with all that is the Red Sox, baseball will always rule in Boston. 1313
tdski19
What baseball lacks when it comes to football is a true "minor league" system. In football, about as many people (if not more) watch college football as they watch the NFL. Most people will have a fav NFL team and a few fav college teams. During the fall people spend most the week debating who's gonna win the various games, college or pro.
Baseball doesn't quite have that. Most baseball fans could care less about minor league teams. If anything they care about the prospects. Baseball fans really have only one team to care about day in and day out. Thus, baseball in a skewed way is not as popular.
But lets not compare apples to kiwis, all i know is that i love football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and lacrosse. Screw what the mass population thinks about the sport
March 25, 2007 at 03:56PM View BBCode
I could see maybe baseball falling behind college basketball but not the $$N$$B$$A$$. The college game rocks all year round. Once march comes, all bets are off, its a national frenzy, thus MARCH MADNESS. Every game is played passionately.What baseball lacks when it comes to football is a true "minor league" system. In football, about as many people (if not more) watch college football as they watch the NFL. Most people will have a fav NFL team and a few fav college teams. During the fall people spend most the week debating who's gonna win the various games, college or pro.
Baseball doesn't quite have that. Most baseball fans could care less about minor league teams. If anything they care about the prospects. Baseball fans really have only one team to care about day in and day out. Thus, baseball in a skewed way is not as popular.
But lets not compare apples to kiwis, all i know is that i love football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and lacrosse. Screw what the mass population thinks about the sport
FuriousGiorge
2) College football is not minor league football. It is college football. A different game. Anyone who follows it because all they care about is how the players will be as pros is a douche (sort of like Simmons with college baskeball).
3) Minor league baseball fills a void in areas of this country where people can't easily go see a major league team. I doubt many of the people who attend minor league games (and there are plenty of them) really care how the players do as major leaguers, considering the fact that most of them will never be major leaguers.
March 25, 2007 at 04:07PM View BBCode
1) Very few people really care about college basketball. They care about the tournament and their brackets. That's it.2) College football is not minor league football. It is college football. A different game. Anyone who follows it because all they care about is how the players will be as pros is a douche (sort of like Simmons with college baskeball).
3) Minor league baseball fills a void in areas of this country where people can't easily go see a major league team. I doubt many of the people who attend minor league games (and there are plenty of them) really care how the players do as major leaguers, considering the fact that most of them will never be major leaguers.
tdski19
Let me reiterrate ---see above--- Baseball is in my opinion the best sport (football is a close second) im just making stupid claims and stupid reasons why baseball might be considered 3rd---- its just what i do
March 25, 2007 at 04:10PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tdski19
But lets not compare apples to kiwis, all i know is that i love football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and lacrosse. Screw what the mass population thinks about the sport
Let me reiterrate ---see above--- Baseball is in my opinion the best sport (football is a close second) im just making stupid claims and stupid reasons why baseball might be considered 3rd---- its just what i do
drunkengoat
March 26, 2007 at 04:55AM View BBCode
Jackson is now a two-team town thanks to the minors. I fancy myself more a Senators fan than I do a Braves fan... I haven't even been to the new park in Pearl... But I moved away the year they finished that AND the Bass Pro Shop that I had intended to rob blind.
Vicar
March 26, 2007 at 12:16PM View BBCode
Dave Winfield has written a book (Don't know the name) about the downfall of Baseball and ways it can be rebuilt. He attributes the downfall as beginning at early youth level where kids no longer spend hours playing ball outside and learning the basics and developing a real love for the game.
rollman1
Two brothers owners, of the Bruins and the Garden. They are also owners of the Delaware North Companies a concession operator.
March 26, 2007 at 03:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Who are the Jacobs?
Two brothers owners, of the Bruins and the Garden. They are also owners of the Delaware North Companies a concession operator.
tm4559
i guess they would own the garden, if it was there anymore.
March 26, 2007 at 04:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by rollman1
Two brothers owners, of the Bruins and the Garden.
i guess they would own the garden, if it was there anymore.
rollman1
Or....the new building is also called the Garden...TD Banknorth Garden, but still the garden.
March 26, 2007 at 04:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by rollman1
Two brothers owners, of the Bruins and the Garden.
i guess they would own the garden, if it was there anymore.
Or....the new building is also called the Garden...TD Banknorth Garden, but still the garden.