HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Halladay to Phillies

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-22-2009, 11:49 AM
  #76
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
What makes a succeful sport is parity, more or less. There will never be perfect parity nor should there be. If you have a league where litterally most of the players on the Royals wouldn't make the yankees. THat isn't lack of parity, that is just not a real league any more, that is two teams of differnt leagues playing in the same one.

Ya, the yanks advertise like crazy, why. because they have the money to do it. THere is the silly idea that stienbrenner wants to win so bad, fact. every owener is baseball wants to win perhaps just as much as him. Yank fans live in delusion that the yanks just spend because they want to win more.

break down the dollars man, it doens't add up, other teams can't spend and make money, other teams have no way to compete. They can pray for a miracle like Tampa in 08, but that is it.

I don't even want to end the yankess dynasty. I don't even want as much parity as hockey, but there has to be more, there just has to be.

from every one who isn't a yankees fan the league is a joke, I wait for the day the first yankees fan wakes up and says. hmmmm? ; maybe every one esle in the world is right.

could it be you? probably not.
Thing is that your presumption is wrong. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers, Angels, Giants, Twins, Tigers, White Sox, Indians, Rangers, Mariners, Phillies, Marlins, Braves, Mets, Cubs and Rockies seem to do fine when they deserve it. Teams like Arizona, Pittsburgh, KC, San Diego and Washington deserve to be bad for the choices they've made.

The idea that you can cultivate a fanbase because you have the dollars (which come from the fanbase) is an inappropriate circular argument. You're also thinking way too short term. This goes back to the 1920s.

What makes a successful sports BUSINESS is parity. If you believe the NFL is the ideal sports league then fine; I believe it is the opposite of an ideal sports league. What makes a successful sport are things like dynasties, greatness and intense competition (including some teams getting pummeled, perennially if they deserve it).

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 11:51 AM
  #77
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
So people want to watch mismatched teams?

I never knew that...
Who said wanting people to watch was the goal of sports? That's the goal of the business surrounding the sport. That's the NFL.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 11:56 AM
  #78
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by okgooil View Post
Cecil to, I love Mcgowan, but untill he can get his health sorted out he is a giant ?

any way will be fun to watch some players build, really lind and Hill are great young peices to build around.
Ya I'm not sold on Cecil he has one really good game followed by two bad starts. Hope he can find some consistency this year.

Reimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 11:56 AM
  #79
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
Who said wanting people to watch was the goal of sports? That's the goal of the business surrounding the sport. That's the NFL.
You're trying to make this sound like a fantasy world where the only objective of sports is winning. The fact is, these sports run on money and the money is provided by the fans.

If you don't have some semblance of parity then you lose fans and you lose money.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 11:57 AM
  #80
Reimer
Tambo Troll Face
 
Reimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
Who said wanting people to watch was the goal of sports? That's the goal of the business surrounding the sport. That's the NFL.
In order to make money the teams need to have fans/ people who want to spend their money to watch games.

Reimer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:00 PM
  #81
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
You're trying to make this sound like a fantasy world where the only objective of sports is winning. The fact is, these sports run on money and the money is provided by the fans.

If you don't have some semblance of parity then you lose fans and you lose money.
They do have some semblance of parity. I just rattled off a list of teams who could win nearly every year. It's large.

People look at the MLB and scoff when they should look more closely at the large amount of things it does right to create such high revenue, attendance and team loyalty.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:03 PM
  #82
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimer View Post
In order to make money the teams need to have fans/ people who want to spend their money to watch games.
And the MLB is doing just fine at that. That's my point. Look at the teams that don't bring people in and you'll see that there are usually pretty evident reasons for it. And it ain't the Yankees payroll...

Look at how much money the Marlins have taken as profit in seasons where they've purposely tanked...if they put that money to players and brought people into the building and then built the brand, they too could be a Juggernaut by now. Every opportunity is there.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:15 PM
  #83
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
They do have some semblance of parity. I just rattled off a list of teams who could win nearly every year. It's large.

People look at the MLB and scoff when they should look more closely at the large amount of things it does right to create such high revenue, attendance and team loyalty.
Of the teams you listed (yes, I am a casual watcher so feel free to correct me if I'm completely off-base here) I don't recall the Giants, Indians, Rangers(????), Braves, Mets, or Cubs doing anything really significant lately.

That said, you listed just over half of the teams in the league. How many of the other teams aren't even close to making the playoffs or have very little chance when going up against a money-fuelled juggernaut like the Yankees? That's a serious question by the way, I don't have an answer to that but I'd be interested to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
And the MLB is doing just fine at that. That's my point. Look at the teams that don't bring people in and you'll see that there are usually pretty evident reasons for it. And it ain't the Yankees payroll...

Look at how much money the Marlins have taken as profit in seasons where they've purposely tanked...if they put that money to players and brought people into the building and then built the brand, they too could be a Juggernaut by now. Every opportunity is there.
Haven't the Marlins also had somewhat recent playoff success though? Wouldn't other teams in the league have a chance of doing better if they had more money to bring in the same calibre of players as other top-end teams?

I wasn't really trying to scoff at the MLB (not something that really excites me, though), I was more taking aim at the whole 'parity isn't the goal of sports' thing.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:16 PM
  #84
okgooil
HFBoards Sponsor
 
okgooil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 12,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
So people want to watch mismatched teams?

I never knew that...
Ya, you didn't know, that is why the NHL needs to add the AHL to it. That would be perfect, this is silly, not knowing who is going to win on a given night, that isn't what poeple want.

okgooil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:20 PM
  #85
okgooil
HFBoards Sponsor
 
okgooil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 12,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
Thing is that your presumption is wrong. The Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals, Dodgers, Angels, Giants, Twins, Tigers, White Sox, Indians, Rangers, Mariners, Phillies, Marlins, Braves, Mets, Cubs and Rockies seem to do fine when they deserve it. Teams like Arizona, Pittsburgh, KC, San Diego and Washington deserve to be bad for the choices they've made.

The idea that you can cultivate a fanbase because you have the dollars (which come from the fanbase) is an inappropriate circular argument. You're also thinking way too short term. This goes back to the 1920s.

What makes a successful sports BUSINESS is parity. If you believe the NFL is the ideal sports league then fine; I believe it is the opposite of an ideal sports league. What makes a successful sport are things like dynasties, greatness and intense competition (including some teams getting pummeled, perennially if they deserve it).

Somewhere in the middle is the perfect league. When A rod makes more then the Marlins, something has to give. Parity is one thing, when half the team's rosters don't even have players that would make the yankees, that isnt' parity, that is two differnt leagues playing together.

and half the team you mentioned, well they have a chance, still are fighing a massive up hill battle. Also what about the half of the teams that have no chance. pretty big % really. 50% have no chance.

okgooil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:28 PM
  #86
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
Of the teams you listed (yes, I am a casual watcher so feel free to correct me if I'm completely off-base here) I don't recall the Giants, Indians, Rangers(????), Braves, Mets, or Cubs doing anything really significant lately.

That said, you listed just over half of the teams in the league. How many of the other teams aren't even close to making the playoffs or have very little chance when going up against a money-fuelled juggernaut like the Yankees? That's a serious question by the way, I don't have an answer to that but I'd be interested to see.

Haven't the Marlins also had somewhat recent playoff success though? Wouldn't other teams in the league have a chance of doing better if they had more money to bring in the same calibre of players as other top-end teams?

I wasn't really trying to scoff at the MLB (not something that really excites me, though), I was more taking aim at the whole 'parity isn't the goal of sports' thing.
The Cubs have had their myriad of usual tragedies de-rail what have been solid and very competitive teams otherwise. They haven't won because well, they're the Cubs.

The Indians go up and down depending on whether they keep the right guys. Not a pretty year this year despite the fact that they should have been on the rise. They have of course moved both Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia.

The Rangers of course signed Alex Rodriguez not so long ago. Last season they were decent and in the wildcard for a very long time. It's true that they haven't had major success in a while, but they always have the possibility.

The Braves won their division from 95 to '05 and can always field a solid team. They've made some bad player decisions as of late.

The Mets have a lot of dough and spend it badly. But they could certainly win.

The Giants too seem to always have a chance. They were decent this season and had some playoff success in the early 00s.

I wouldn't say a ton of the remaining teams have "no chance". Tampa, Toronto, Baltimore, Houston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Oakland aren't necessarily "bad". Tampa in fact is improving, but need to figure out how to get people in the seats.

It's true the Marlins have had some success...but they waste it and the fans aren't there because of this constant toying with them.

Fair enough point on parity, it's just something I'm very passionate about.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:33 PM
  #87
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
The Cubs have had their myriad of usual tragedies de-rail what have been solid and very competitive teams otherwise. They haven't won because well, they're the Cubs.

The Indians go up and down depending on whether they keep the right guys. Not a pretty year this year despite the fact that they should have been on the rise. They have of course moved both Cliff Lee and CC Sabathia.

The Rangers of course signed Alex Rodriguez not so long ago. Last season they were decent and in the wildcard for a very long time. It's true that they haven't had major success in a while, but they always have the possibility.

The Braves won their division from 95 to '05 and can always field a solid team. They've made some bad player decisions as of late.

The Mets have a lot of dough and spend it badly. But they could certainly win.

The Giants too seem to always have a chance. They were decent this season and had some playoff success in the early 00s.

I wouldn't say a ton of the remaining teams have "no chance". Tampa, Toronto, Baltimore, Houston, Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Oakland aren't necessarily "bad". Tampa in fact is improving, but need to figure out how to get people in the seats.

It's true the Marlins have had some success...but they waste it and the fans aren't there because of this constant toying with them.

Fair enough point on parity, it's just something I'm very passionate about.
It's good that you're passionate about it, it makes for interesting discussions

I wouldn't say that Toronto is a terrible team (out of those other teams you listed I only know that Oakland isn't very good - not a clue about the rest of them) but do they stand a chance against the Red Sox or the Yankees? What are the Blue Jays payroll compared to the payroll of those two teams?

If the Blue Jays could spend as much money as the Yankees and pull in some star players, do you think they'd be more able to compete against the Yankees or the Red Sox for a Wild Card position?

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:40 PM
  #88
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1
Registered User
 
LoudmouthHemskyfan#1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: E-town
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallydull View Post
It's good that you're passionate about it, it makes for interesting discussions

I wouldn't say that Toronto is a terrible team (out of those other teams you listed I only know that Oakland isn't very good - not a clue about the rest of them) but do they stand a chance against the Red Sox or the Yankees? What are the Blue Jays payroll compared to the payroll of those two teams?

If the Blue Jays could spend as much money as the Yankees and pull in some star players, do you think they'd be more able to compete against the Yankees or the Red Sox for a Wild Card position?
The Jays payroll is low-ish. They were projected to spend $105 but spent 80-some. If you look at their ticket revenue, MLB.com revenue (which is amazingly high), and league-wide tv revenue, (not even taking into account wealthy ownership, local TV and other streams) they should be able to compete money-wise. They'd also be making a lot more money on tickets if they weren't so bad.

I think the Jays could compete right now, but have suffered through bad management for a very long time. They don't sign the right FAs and have committed to players that haven't delivered (Rios, Wells, Ryan etc.). We'll see if the new guy takes a more thorough approach.

LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-22-2009, 12:44 PM
  #89
Mentallydull
Registered User
 
Mentallydull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oil Country
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoudmouthHemskyfan#1 View Post
The Jays payroll is low-ish. They were projected to spend $105 but spent 80-some. If you look at their ticket revenue, MLB.com revenue (which is amazingly high), and league-wide tv revenue, (not even taking into account wealthy ownership, local TV and other streams) they should be able to compete money-wise. They'd also be making a lot more money on tickets if they weren't so bad.

I think the Jays could compete right now, but have suffered through bad management for a very long time. They don't sign the right FAs and have committed to players that haven't delivered (Rios, Wells, Ryan etc.). We'll see if the new guy takes a more thorough approach.
Even when they were on that sick run at the beginning of the season, weren't they still having issues filling up the stadium though?

I agree that we'll have to wait and see what the new GM does, at this point everything is just speculation. I'm just not sure I can see some of the lower end teams competing with teams like the BoSox or the Yankees.

Mentallydull is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.