Look out world, all of us displaced Canadians have purpose again in our lives!!! Well besides talking about the weather, and complaining about American beer...
Well, ratification does not come until next week. However, this is one American that is very happy to have the sport back. Football is just not enough for me, I need my Hockey season!
I think the league just over extended itself. I guess no one realized that hockey in southern states is little more than a fad.
And I can understand why. I moved to Florida a year ago, and in this climate the thought of playing a game on ice just seems ridiculous. Getting people to go into an ice rink to watch a game played on ice is a hard sell, even if they grew up in the North. Despite the fact that most money in sports comes from things other than ticket sales, a team with a disinterested fan base will never be revenue positive.
But with that said, I'm excited to have it back. When it comes to intensity, there's not much that compares to playoff hockey. Not even the World Cup final.
Too bad they will play this year... so no more American Superstars in the Swiss Hockey League
It was very interesting to see all those big names playing for our teams...
Actually, I found that a little hypocritical of the players. They were speaking against having "replacement" players (scabs) in the NHL, yet they put people out of jobs in other hockey leagues...
Actually, I found that a little hypocritical of the players. They were speaking against having "replacement" players (scabs) in the NHL, yet they put people out of jobs in other hockey leagues...
Right, but it was not so bad. You can have only two or three players of foreign nationality per team in Switzerland anyway. But true -- if you can earn some more money for playing a few games and not train as much as you probably should, why not do it?
Some teams were successful only because of one or two players, so the whole league got a little shaken. Therefore it's OK they're back were they belong to. But it was nice to see the "hockey gods" live
Some teams were successful only because of one or two players, so the whole league got a little shaken. Therefore it's OK they're back were they belong to. But it was nice to see the "hockey gods" live
Yeah, I can see your point. I'm a little spoiled when it comes to "hockey gods". The neighbourhood I grew up in, in the eastern part of Toronto, had 2 NHL Hall of Famers living there. Also when I went to college in Ottawa, across the street from my apartment was the arena the local "junior" team played in. Saw many up and coming NHL players, just before they were drafted into the NHL. Now that I'm living in the USA, at least the semi-local team plays in "Hockey Town USA" (Detroit)
I'l never go to see a game or watch it on TV unless I can avoid it. If they don't care about there fans I won't be one. My new game is Base Ball thanks anyway. Let Hocky just fade away.
I'l never go to see a game or watch it on TV unless I can avoid it. If they don't care about there fans I won't be one. My new game is Base Ball thanks anyway. Let Hocky just fade away.
Ummm, what about the "Base Ball" strikes? Seems to me they have been just as guilty of not caring about the fans... Heck, they are the only major professional sports league that has absolutely no salary control, hence it is the same few "rich" teams in the playoffs year after year! Great if you are a Braves fan or Yankees fan, not so great for most of the other teams.
I'll stick with the NFL, NHL, & NBA, where there is some real competition for the championship year after year!8)
Ummm, what about the "Base Ball" strikes? Seems to me they have been just as guilty of not caring about the fans...
Disagree. Baseball had a strike in 94. They lost part of a season. THey learned from their problem and struck a deal with no strike the next time in 2002. Now they are working on the next agreement for 07.
The NBA had a lockout in 98-99. They lost part of the season. Now they just figured out a new deal without another strike.
THe NFL last had a labor problem in 87 when they had scabs. Several collective bargaining agreements since without coming close to a work stoppage.
Hockey had a strike/lockout in what, 99 or so at the same time as the NHL. Do they learn their lesson and avoid a labor war the next time like the other three leagues did? No, instead they stage the biggest confrontation ever. What makes it even worse is that unlike the other sports they have tiny TV revenues and are clearly the weakest financially of the four major sports. And while the NHL has a certain very loyal fanbase, they also have a ton of casual fans who easily will drop away. So I say, the NHL/NHLPA is more guilty of not caring about their fans. Other leagues blew it but then got it right the next time because they didn't want to risk further alienation of their larger fanbases. THe NHL couldnt get it figured out and instead lost an entire season and went on their second stoppage. In fact in the last ten years the labor stoppage results show a grand total of 1 by the NFL/MLB/NHL and 2 just for the NHL. When baseball has two stoppages costing a season and a half in a period of six years then you can start to compare it to hockey for not caring about fans.
Quote:
Heck, they are the only major professional sports league that has absolutely no salary control, hence it is the same few "rich" teams in the playoffs year after year!
That's true to some extent. Although really that applies to maybe three teams and perhaps you might say it only applies to the Yankees. Even the higher level teams like the Dodgers and Braves have gone back to the pack a bit as far as salary so really it is just the Red Sox and Yankees and Mets and the Mets have been inept at it. Also there has been some success by small market teams like Oakland and Minnesota. Florida has weak revenues, the Angels have gotten better but were certainly a modest salary team in 02, St. Louis is a good baseball town but not high revenue, Astros have been midlevel, likewise for the Giants etc. Diamondbacks had some questionable methods but really you would have to say that 3 of the last 4 teams to win the World Series weren't big time spenders with 01 AZ, 02 AA and 03 FL.
And hockey has been even worse in that regard too. Compare what the Red Wings have done money wise buying guys up with Pittsburgh where they can't afford jack.
Quote:
I'll stick with the NFL, NHL, & NBA, where there is some real competition for the championship year after year!
The NBA? No way. The NBA has always had the least competition of any league. Not due to financial structures but just due to how much one or two or three guys can dominate that league. You just never see like a #7 seeded team or a wildcard team going to the Finals like you do in the other sports. Going back to the Laker and Celtics then the Pistons and the Bulls and Rockets and Lakers and Spurs. IIRC there is only one championship in the last 25+ years that has not been won by either the Celtics, Lakes, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, or Pistons. I will take the Pistons, Spurs, and Heat for next year and you can have the other 29 teams and I'd like my odds on having chosen the 2006 champ. Every year you can narrow it to just a few teams before the season starts whereas surprises happen in all three of the other major sports. NFL probably has the most parity although the Patriots are the exception to the rule. NHL has surprise teams like the Lightning but also teams like the Red Wings or Avalanche that pay and have stars and are perennial contenders.
Ummm, what about the "Base Ball" strikes? Seems to me they have been just as guilty of not caring about the fans... Heck, they are the only major professional sports league that has absolutely no salary control, hence it is the same few "rich" teams in the playoffs year after year! Great if you are a Braves fan or Yankees fan, not so great for most of the other teams.
I'll stick with the NFL, NHL, & NBA, where there is some real competition for the championship year after year!8)
The Yankees give teams almost as much money as some cheap don't care owners spend on their teams
It is not the Yankees fault they are located in an incredibly lucrative market. And I also find it amusing how people somehow take issue with the fact that Steinbrenner actually puts the money he makes back into the team like any smart businessman would do. Other owners instead like to keep it for themselves.
There is no competition in the NBA. Don't know what you're talking about there.
The Yankees give teams almost as much money as some cheap don't care owners spend on their teams
It is not the Yankees fault they are located in an incredibly lucrative market.
I have no problem with owners spending money on their teams. However the "lucrative market" puts most other teams at a distinct disadvantage. When teams like the Braves can win their division 10 years in a row, or the Yankees are in the playoffs 10 years in a row, 8 as divisional winner and the other 2 as wildcard, there is no competitive balance. What team other than Boston stands a chance against the Yankees year after year? Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore might as well stay home, because they can't possibly match the spending levels of the top 2 teams. This is not because their owners are "cheap", but they can't spend more than they take in revenue. They don't, and can't have Yankee or Boston style TV contracts.
The NFL has it done it right. Your market doesn't matter, as all teams share a common TV contract. There is also revenue sharing at the stadiums, as the visiting team gets a piece of the gate. Their is a fairly sensible salary cap (although players can get a little screwed because their contracts are not guaranteed). The New England Patriots are not winning due to a "money" advantage, or even a "star" player advantage. They have the same tools as everybody else, they are just being coached better, and playing as a team better. That is what sports should be about!
Sports are part of a highly competitive entertainment market. The oft-noted invisible hand will bring the market to equilibrium. The teams with the best backing should win the most. That's how everything else in the world works. If you can't stand that idea, don't watch sports. In doing so, you will help reverse the invisible hand that got sports to the level they are at now.
Sports are first about competition within a specific league. When a league is dominated by a few teams because they will ALWAYS afford the top-end players, where is the competition for the rest of the league?
Tell me this: Why will the Kansas City Royals not make it to a World Series any time soon?
The teams with the best backing should win the most. That's how everything else in the world works.
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
First off, ticket sales are not a major source of revenue. There are also 168+ baseball games in a season. I bet total baseball attendance blows football away.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that I don't really enjoy baseball. I am a reasonably loud Redskins fan, but my point isn't that baseball is good or bad. My point is that baseball and football are businesses, and they should be making decisions based on maximizing short and long term profits. Baseball has the unfair advantage of not having to care about the long term since the MLB is a state-sanctioned monopoly, and the MLB is fully aware of this.
I have no problem with owners spending money on their teams. However the "lucrative market" puts most other teams at a distinct disadvantage. When teams like the Braves can win their division 10 years in a row, or the Yankees are in the playoffs 10 years in a row, 8 as divisional winner and the other 2 as wildcard, there is no competitive balance. What team other than Boston stands a chance against the Yankees year after year? Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore might as well stay home, because they can't possibly match the spending levels of the top 2 teams. This is not because their owners are "cheap", but they can't spend more than they take in revenue. They don't, and can't have Yankee or Boston style TV contracts.
There is also revenue sharing at the stadiums, as the visiting team gets a piece of the gate.
Look up revenue sharing.... The Yankees pay more in revenue sharing to small market teams than the Twins entire payroll.
And the biggest reason IS because owners are cheap. They are not spending more than the revenue they make. They are making huge profit by having mediocre teams. It is profitable even when attendance is low. That's why they don't care. And as long as Steinbrenner is giving them 50 million a year in the luxury tax they don't care. The Yankees have their own TV contract. They started their own network. All teams have fairly good tv contracts. As with any business, it is only as good as you make it. Too many owners don't care. Look at the Orioles. They have a huge market, they have sell outs nearly every game, a beautiful downtown stadium, lucrative tv contract, but their owner is a jackass. They are 2 games out of first place and he won't up the ante by spending money on a move that could push them over the top.
Quote:
Tell me this: Why will the Kansas City Royals not make it to a World Series any time soon?
Because they won't spend the money and because they don't have a good GM who builds a strong farm system. Oakland A's have done amazingly well considering their annual budget. Why? Because they make smart moves and have built an excellent farm system. There are ways for smaller market clubs to compete. They choose not to.
Quote:
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
MLB is reaching all time records in attendance....and they have 162 games a regular season. 81 vs 7 home games for baseball vs footballl. it is a very different comparison. As have shown, even mediocre teams can have great attendance figures when their facility is nice and the experience is fun and entertaining.
Besides, baseball has ALWAYS been dominated by the few select teams who could sign the big contracts. That has never changed. The Yankees have dominated baseball for over 80 years. Obviously it is not an issue to its success
Quote:
Actually, I disagree. If you look at recent history, there is a "Power shift" every few years.
Examples:
2005 finals: Spurs & Pistons -> Spurs won
2004 finals: Lakers & Pistons -> Pistons won
2003 finals: Spurs & Nets -> Spurs won
2002 finals: Lakers & Nets -> Lakers won
2001 finals: lakers & 76ers -> Lakers won
Sure a few teams in each conference can be a power for a few years, but over the last couple of decades, it keeps changing as to who they are.
all downfalls of a dominant team have been the result of their major star switching teams. a team sport dominated by individual performance. not too exciting.
And the NBA Finals are one of the only sporting events I watch and constantly think that they are fixed. And the NBA has gone much too far in their "urbanization" of the league. It has turned me off and many other people.
Comments
It was nice to see folks flock to the lesser leagues, but too bad Canada's national broadcaster - the CBC - refused to air any these games.
And I can understand why. I moved to Florida a year ago, and in this climate the thought of playing a game on ice just seems ridiculous. Getting people to go into an ice rink to watch a game played on ice is a hard sell, even if they grew up in the North. Despite the fact that most money in sports comes from things other than ticket sales, a team with a disinterested fan base will never be revenue positive.
But with that said, I'm excited to have it back. When it comes to intensity, there's not much that compares to playoff hockey. Not even the World Cup final.
It was very interesting to see all those big names playing for our teams...
Originally posted by durin oakenskin
Too bad they will play this year... so no more American Superstars in the Swiss Hockey League
It was very interesting to see all those big names playing for our teams...
Actually, I found that a little hypocritical of the players. They were speaking against having "replacement" players (scabs) in the NHL, yet they put people out of jobs in other hockey leagues...
Originally posted by almostwise
Actually, I found that a little hypocritical of the players. They were speaking against having "replacement" players (scabs) in the NHL, yet they put people out of jobs in other hockey leagues...
Right, but it was not so bad. You can have only two or three players of foreign nationality per team in Switzerland anyway. But true -- if you can earn some more money for playing a few games and not train as much as you probably should, why not do it?
Some teams were successful only because of one or two players, so the whole league got a little shaken. Therefore it's OK they're back were they belong to. But it was nice to see the "hockey gods" live
Originally posted by durin oakenskin
Some teams were successful only because of one or two players, so the whole league got a little shaken. Therefore it's OK they're back were they belong to. But it was nice to see the "hockey gods" live
Yeah, I can see your point. I'm a little spoiled when it comes to "hockey gods". The neighbourhood I grew up in, in the eastern part of Toronto, had 2 NHL Hall of Famers living there. Also when I went to college in Ottawa, across the street from my apartment was the arena the local "junior" team played in. Saw many up and coming NHL players, just before they were drafted into the NHL. Now that I'm living in the USA, at least the semi-local team plays in "Hockey Town USA" (Detroit)
I'l never go to see a game or watch it on TV unless I can avoid it. If they don't care about there fans I won't be one. My new game is Base Ball thanks anyway. Let Hocky just fade away.
Originally posted by AquaMac
Ho no! Hocky is just a waste of Ice.
I'l never go to see a game or watch it on TV unless I can avoid it. If they don't care about there fans I won't be one. My new game is Base Ball thanks anyway. Let Hocky just fade away.
Ummm, what about the "Base Ball" strikes? Seems to me they have been just as guilty of not caring about the fans... Heck, they are the only major professional sports league that has absolutely no salary control, hence it is the same few "rich" teams in the playoffs year after year! Great if you are a Braves fan or Yankees fan, not so great for most of the other teams.
I'll stick with the NFL, NHL, & NBA, where there is some real competition for the championship year after year!8)
Ummm, what about the "Base Ball" strikes? Seems to me they have been just as guilty of not caring about the fans...
Disagree. Baseball had a strike in 94. They lost part of a season. THey learned from their problem and struck a deal with no strike the next time in 2002. Now they are working on the next agreement for 07.
The NBA had a lockout in 98-99. They lost part of the season. Now they just figured out a new deal without another strike.
THe NFL last had a labor problem in 87 when they had scabs. Several collective bargaining agreements since without coming close to a work stoppage.
Hockey had a strike/lockout in what, 99 or so at the same time as the NHL. Do they learn their lesson and avoid a labor war the next time like the other three leagues did? No, instead they stage the biggest confrontation ever. What makes it even worse is that unlike the other sports they have tiny TV revenues and are clearly the weakest financially of the four major sports. And while the NHL has a certain very loyal fanbase, they also have a ton of casual fans who easily will drop away. So I say, the NHL/NHLPA is more guilty of not caring about their fans. Other leagues blew it but then got it right the next time because they didn't want to risk further alienation of their larger fanbases. THe NHL couldnt get it figured out and instead lost an entire season and went on their second stoppage. In fact in the last ten years the labor stoppage results show a grand total of 1 by the NFL/MLB/NHL and 2 just for the NHL. When baseball has two stoppages costing a season and a half in a period of six years then you can start to compare it to hockey for not caring about fans.
Heck, they are the only major professional sports league that has absolutely no salary control, hence it is the same few "rich" teams in the playoffs year after year!
That's true to some extent. Although really that applies to maybe three teams and perhaps you might say it only applies to the Yankees. Even the higher level teams like the Dodgers and Braves have gone back to the pack a bit as far as salary so really it is just the Red Sox and Yankees and Mets and the Mets have been inept at it. Also there has been some success by small market teams like Oakland and Minnesota. Florida has weak revenues, the Angels have gotten better but were certainly a modest salary team in 02, St. Louis is a good baseball town but not high revenue, Astros have been midlevel, likewise for the Giants etc. Diamondbacks had some questionable methods but really you would have to say that 3 of the last 4 teams to win the World Series weren't big time spenders with 01 AZ, 02 AA and 03 FL.
And hockey has been even worse in that regard too. Compare what the Red Wings have done money wise buying guys up with Pittsburgh where they can't afford jack.
I'll stick with the NFL, NHL, & NBA, where there is some real competition for the championship year after year!
The NBA? No way. The NBA has always had the least competition of any league. Not due to financial structures but just due to how much one or two or three guys can dominate that league. You just never see like a #7 seeded team or a wildcard team going to the Finals like you do in the other sports. Going back to the Laker and Celtics then the Pistons and the Bulls and Rockets and Lakers and Spurs. IIRC there is only one championship in the last 25+ years that has not been won by either the Celtics, Lakes, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, or Pistons. I will take the Pistons, Spurs, and Heat for next year and you can have the other 29 teams and I'd like my odds on having chosen the 2006 champ. Every year you can narrow it to just a few teams before the season starts whereas surprises happen in all three of the other major sports. NFL probably has the most parity although the Patriots are the exception to the rule. NHL has surprise teams like the Lightning but also teams like the Red Wings or Avalanche that pay and have stars and are perennial contenders.
g'night
Originally posted by almostwise
Ummm, what about the "Base Ball" strikes? Seems to me they have been just as guilty of not caring about the fans... Heck, they are the only major professional sports league that has absolutely no salary control, hence it is the same few "rich" teams in the playoffs year after year! Great if you are a Braves fan or Yankees fan, not so great for most of the other teams.
I'll stick with the NFL, NHL, & NBA, where there is some real competition for the championship year after year!8)
The Yankees give teams almost as much money as some cheap don't care owners spend on their teams
It is not the Yankees fault they are located in an incredibly lucrative market. And I also find it amusing how people somehow take issue with the fact that Steinbrenner actually puts the money he makes back into the team like any smart businessman would do. Other owners instead like to keep it for themselves.
There is no competition in the NBA. Don't know what you're talking about there.
Originally posted by Bronxite
The Yankees give teams almost as much money as some cheap don't care owners spend on their teams
It is not the Yankees fault they are located in an incredibly lucrative market.
I have no problem with owners spending money on their teams. However the "lucrative market" puts most other teams at a distinct disadvantage. When teams like the Braves can win their division 10 years in a row, or the Yankees are in the playoffs 10 years in a row, 8 as divisional winner and the other 2 as wildcard, there is no competitive balance. What team other than Boston stands a chance against the Yankees year after year? Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore might as well stay home, because they can't possibly match the spending levels of the top 2 teams. This is not because their owners are "cheap", but they can't spend more than they take in revenue. They don't, and can't have Yankee or Boston style TV contracts.
The NFL has it done it right. Your market doesn't matter, as all teams share a common TV contract. There is also revenue sharing at the stadiums, as the visiting team gets a piece of the gate. Their is a fairly sensible salary cap (although players can get a little screwed because their contracts are not guaranteed). The New England Patriots are not winning due to a "money" advantage, or even a "star" player advantage. They have the same tools as everybody else, they are just being coached better, and playing as a team better. That is what sports should be about!
Originally posted by almostwise
. . . That is what sports should be about!
Sports are part of a highly competitive entertainment market. The oft-noted invisible hand will bring the market to equilibrium. The teams with the best backing should win the most. That's how everything else in the world works. If you can't stand that idea, don't watch sports. In doing so, you will help reverse the invisible hand that got sports to the level they are at now.
Tell me this: Why will the Kansas City Royals not make it to a World Series any time soon?
Originally posted by Splinemodel
The teams with the best backing should win the most. That's how everything else in the world works.
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
Originally posted by Bronxite
There is no competition in the NBA. Don't know what you're talking about there.
Only if you are a Knicks fan...
Actually, I disagree. If you look at recent history, there is a "Power shift" every few years.
Examples:
2005 finals: Spurs & Pistons -> Spurs won
2004 finals: Lakers & Pistons -> Pistons won
2003 finals: Spurs & Nets -> Spurs won
2002 finals: Lakers & Nets -> Lakers won
2001 finals: lakers & 76ers -> Lakers won
Sure a few teams in each conference can be a power for a few years, but over the last couple of decades, it keeps changing as to who they are.
Originally posted by almostwise
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
First off, ticket sales are not a major source of revenue. There are also 168+ baseball games in a season. I bet total baseball attendance blows football away.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that I don't really enjoy baseball. I am a reasonably loud Redskins fan, but my point isn't that baseball is good or bad. My point is that baseball and football are businesses, and they should be making decisions based on maximizing short and long term profits. Baseball has the unfair advantage of not having to care about the long term since the MLB is a state-sanctioned monopoly, and the MLB is fully aware of this.
Originally posted by almostwise
I have no problem with owners spending money on their teams. However the "lucrative market" puts most other teams at a distinct disadvantage. When teams like the Braves can win their division 10 years in a row, or the Yankees are in the playoffs 10 years in a row, 8 as divisional winner and the other 2 as wildcard, there is no competitive balance. What team other than Boston stands a chance against the Yankees year after year? Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Baltimore might as well stay home, because they can't possibly match the spending levels of the top 2 teams. This is not because their owners are "cheap", but they can't spend more than they take in revenue. They don't, and can't have Yankee or Boston style TV contracts.
There is also revenue sharing at the stadiums, as the visiting team gets a piece of the gate.
Look up revenue sharing.... The Yankees pay more in revenue sharing to small market teams than the Twins entire payroll.
And the biggest reason IS because owners are cheap. They are not spending more than the revenue they make. They are making huge profit by having mediocre teams. It is profitable even when attendance is low. That's why they don't care. And as long as Steinbrenner is giving them 50 million a year in the luxury tax they don't care. The Yankees have their own TV contract. They started their own network. All teams have fairly good tv contracts. As with any business, it is only as good as you make it. Too many owners don't care. Look at the Orioles. They have a huge market, they have sell outs nearly every game, a beautiful downtown stadium, lucrative tv contract, but their owner is a jackass. They are 2 games out of first place and he won't up the ante by spending money on a move that could push them over the top.
Tell me this: Why will the Kansas City Royals not make it to a World Series any time soon?
Because they won't spend the money and because they don't have a good GM who builds a strong farm system. Oakland A's have done amazingly well considering their annual budget. Why? Because they make smart moves and have built an excellent farm system. There are ways for smaller market clubs to compete. They choose not to.
But notice, in the NFL, where every team has the same competitive advantage, EVERY team has "best backing". How many NFL games are NOT sellouts? Very few. In comparison, most major league baseball teams have half empty stadiums for most games. Why? Because it is discouraging for fans to support teams that never have a chance to win it all. Baseball is still the national past time, but unless you are lucky enough to be a fan a very small group of teams, it is very discouraging to watch.
MLB is reaching all time records in attendance....and they have 162 games a regular season. 81 vs 7 home games for baseball vs footballl. it is a very different comparison. As have shown, even mediocre teams can have great attendance figures when their facility is nice and the experience is fun and entertaining.
Besides, baseball has ALWAYS been dominated by the few select teams who could sign the big contracts. That has never changed. The Yankees have dominated baseball for over 80 years. Obviously it is not an issue to its success
Actually, I disagree. If you look at recent history, there is a "Power shift" every few years.
Examples:
2005 finals: Spurs & Pistons -> Spurs won
2004 finals: Lakers & Pistons -> Pistons won
2003 finals: Spurs & Nets -> Spurs won
2002 finals: Lakers & Nets -> Lakers won
2001 finals: lakers & 76ers -> Lakers won
Sure a few teams in each conference can be a power for a few years, but over the last couple of decades, it keeps changing as to who they are.
all downfalls of a dominant team have been the result of their major star switching teams. a team sport dominated by individual performance. not too exciting.
And the NBA Finals are one of the only sporting events I watch and constantly think that they are fixed. And the NBA has gone much too far in their "urbanization" of the league. It has turned me off and many other people.