First, let me say that I respect Nick Douglas' ideas and work ethic. Anyone who puts forth a consistent point-of-view and backs it up deserves to be commended. That said, I take serious issue with what Nick Douglas wrote in his recent report about the Alex Rodriguez trade and the latest transgression of imbalance in major league baseball. Nick Douglas, and others can chime in, if they wish. Note that my comments will be prefaced by astricks:
DOUGLAS' COMMENTS BEGIN:
The Alex Rodriguez trade is being touted as being bad for baseball by many folks. The most common argument is how baseball?s unlevel financial playing field makes it unfair for lower revenue teams.
***This is a fact. I don't think, even you, will deny this.
In the NFL, critics say, the hard salary cap allows every team to compete because every team?s salary structure must be very similar. Personlly, I find that argument to be poppycock.
***Why? Can you imagine a Green Bay baseball team competing with the Yankees? THE BFL "got it right" when Pete Rozzell and Tex Schram designed the revenue sharing agreements in the 1960s. Furthermore, the cap ensures that the players will not totally run roughshod over this league, as they have done in the NHL and MLB. Keep in mind that in the NHL, player salaries account for 75 percent of the grss receipts. SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT! It's damn near impossible to make money in that sport as an owner, unless you own a big market team -- and even that is difficult. The comment you made is that "every team (can) compete) becasue the salary structure is similar." That's not "poppycock." That's very much a true statement, particularly if you contrast the NFL's policy versus that of MLB.
The NFL?s structure has produced good popularity for the game, but I am unconvinced that the NFL?s popularity is any greater than it would be if its competitive balance resembled baseball?s.
***You are GROSSLY underestimating the popularity of the NFL, versus baseball. The NFL is a truly "national" pastime, whereas baseball has been reduced to regional game. For example, 30 million sports fans will watch Green Bay play Oakland, despite the fact that most of them live no where close to those cities. In baseball, of Oakland plays the Brewers, no one outside those two cities, other than gamblers gives a damn. That's why NBC's "Game of the Week" and "Monday Night Baseball" were dismal failures. Unlike football, fans in other cities don't really care much about other teams. While every American male watches MNF, very few people watch basebal by comparison. One of the main reasons is the financial structure of the NFL, which allows all teams to compete.
The NFL is handicapped every year by the fact that there are no marquee teams anymore.
***You see the glass half-empty and I see it half-full. There was building resentment agaisnt the game at times when the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers seemed to be going through their respective dynasties. I recall lots of fan sentiment rooting AGAINST these teams, becasue they were always one TV and always in the playoffs. If there was a "super team" in the NFL on par with the Yankees, that would hurt the game of football. Just about every NFL game is a sellout (except in Phoenix) largely becasue at the start of each season, EVERY team has hope they can be the Cinderella story. I don't think marguee teams do much for the game's popularity. Hoever, marquee "players: do -- as we have seen with the retirement of Dr J, Jordan, Johnson, and Bird. The NBA is not the same league with those stars gone.
Even when a matchup like Patriots vs. Dolphins happens (success vs. superstars) its hardly the kind of must-see game that will draw large national interest.
***MNF ratings were higher than Major League Baseball's playoff games -- that's been the case for over a decade. I recall the ultimate humiliation for baseball when two seasons ago the 0-5 Dallas Cowboys played the 0-5 Washington Redskins, and that woeful MNF game outdrew the ALCS game on the opposite channel. That was big news at the time. So, what you are saying about key NFL matchups is not true. Most, if not all NFL games, garner national interst (I attribute much of this to gambling -- but that's another issue).
It is true that the playoffs and Super Bowl draw interest, but ask heavyweight boxing what a thin rope you walk when you rely on the championship to be the draw rather than the star.
***NFL regular season games saw a slight decline in ratings over the past ten years. By comparison, major league baseball games have fallen off the chart. Some of this is due to many more cable choices now than 15-20 years ago. But football has not lost nearly as many fans as football. The World Series of Baseball has struggled with ratings in recent years, also. By contrast, the Super Bowl holds 9 out of the top 10 spots on the all time TV ratings list.
In baseball, not only is the World Series a draw, but superstar teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs are draws as well.
***All of these teams are coming off huge seasons, so your comment is well-timed. But let's look at these teams in a larger time span. The Cubs have been a dismal franchise for decades and do not draw significant ratings, despite being linked to WGN with national cable presence. I don't know anyone who watches the Cubs games, unless they have money on the game (surely, Chicago is the exception). The Red Sox are a big draw in New England, but they get little or no interest beyond that region of the country. I agree that the Yankees are a big draw whereever they play and are shown, in part because of large expatriot New Yorkers living in other regions of the country.
It is true that middling franchises like my beloved Brewers sometimes pay the price. An incompetent franchise can stay bad for a period of a decade or more rather than having great players fall into its lap like the Bengals or Falcons of the NFL do. It is unforntuate for those teams, but for the sport as a whole, this situation is a healthy one.
***I don't know how you can say basebal is healthy, when 1/3 of the teams can't compete. Another third have NO MARGIN for error -- everything must go perfect for them to win. Then, there are the other third who have the money and resources. Then, there are the Yankees in the superclass of teams, which could lose half their pitching and roster and would still be a favorite to win the division (they'd quickly make up for deficiencies through trades -- where no other teams can do that). About 5-6 years ago, the Yankess were to be commended for being a TEAM, of mostly home grown athletes. I actually liked and admired this team. But they abandoned that philopsophy and are now back to "buying championships."
There will be plenty of other contending teams besides the Yankees and Red Sox this season.
***I would not say "plenty." There are the Yankees, then a subclass of decent teams which includes Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Florida, San Franciscio, and Anaheim. The rest of the teams have NO MARGIN for error, and are longshots. Contrast this with the NFL, where probably 20 teams could potentially win the Super Bowl next season.
And, believe it or not, both teams have legitimate holes that could prevent either from even reaching the playoffs or World Series. Other teams? quest to exploit those holes and topple the Goliaths of baseball will be what makes the 2004 baseball season so much fun.
***I don't think it's fun to watch any game where my team is at a consistent DIS-ADVANTAGE. I agree that every new season brings optimism. But the anger factor towards baseball -- both players and owners -- has reached epidemic proportions. I don't think it's "fun" to be a fan of the Indians and have to watch your entire roster shipped off to New York and Boston every season. Free agency has killed this game ( irealize the courts made that horrendous decision to allow players to pimp themselves to th highest bidder every season). That would be bad enough to kill fan loyalty, but to add the fact of the horrific team imbalance, creates an hierachy that makes the sport NON-COMPETITIVE. Pretty soon, it's going to be like watching Harlem Globtrotter games.
***One more point -- when both New York teams played in the World Series (two big market marquee teams) back a few years ago, that was the LOWEST rated WS telecast of all-time. So, most fans DO NOT want to see dynasty teams and the big money makers getting all the victories and titles.
I'm sure you will have some feedback, and I look forward to it.
-- Nolan Dalla
DOUGLAS' COMMENTS BEGIN:
The Alex Rodriguez trade is being touted as being bad for baseball by many folks. The most common argument is how baseball?s unlevel financial playing field makes it unfair for lower revenue teams.
***This is a fact. I don't think, even you, will deny this.
In the NFL, critics say, the hard salary cap allows every team to compete because every team?s salary structure must be very similar. Personlly, I find that argument to be poppycock.
***Why? Can you imagine a Green Bay baseball team competing with the Yankees? THE BFL "got it right" when Pete Rozzell and Tex Schram designed the revenue sharing agreements in the 1960s. Furthermore, the cap ensures that the players will not totally run roughshod over this league, as they have done in the NHL and MLB. Keep in mind that in the NHL, player salaries account for 75 percent of the grss receipts. SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT! It's damn near impossible to make money in that sport as an owner, unless you own a big market team -- and even that is difficult. The comment you made is that "every team (can) compete) becasue the salary structure is similar." That's not "poppycock." That's very much a true statement, particularly if you contrast the NFL's policy versus that of MLB.
The NFL?s structure has produced good popularity for the game, but I am unconvinced that the NFL?s popularity is any greater than it would be if its competitive balance resembled baseball?s.
***You are GROSSLY underestimating the popularity of the NFL, versus baseball. The NFL is a truly "national" pastime, whereas baseball has been reduced to regional game. For example, 30 million sports fans will watch Green Bay play Oakland, despite the fact that most of them live no where close to those cities. In baseball, of Oakland plays the Brewers, no one outside those two cities, other than gamblers gives a damn. That's why NBC's "Game of the Week" and "Monday Night Baseball" were dismal failures. Unlike football, fans in other cities don't really care much about other teams. While every American male watches MNF, very few people watch basebal by comparison. One of the main reasons is the financial structure of the NFL, which allows all teams to compete.
The NFL is handicapped every year by the fact that there are no marquee teams anymore.
***You see the glass half-empty and I see it half-full. There was building resentment agaisnt the game at times when the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers seemed to be going through their respective dynasties. I recall lots of fan sentiment rooting AGAINST these teams, becasue they were always one TV and always in the playoffs. If there was a "super team" in the NFL on par with the Yankees, that would hurt the game of football. Just about every NFL game is a sellout (except in Phoenix) largely becasue at the start of each season, EVERY team has hope they can be the Cinderella story. I don't think marguee teams do much for the game's popularity. Hoever, marquee "players: do -- as we have seen with the retirement of Dr J, Jordan, Johnson, and Bird. The NBA is not the same league with those stars gone.
Even when a matchup like Patriots vs. Dolphins happens (success vs. superstars) its hardly the kind of must-see game that will draw large national interest.
***MNF ratings were higher than Major League Baseball's playoff games -- that's been the case for over a decade. I recall the ultimate humiliation for baseball when two seasons ago the 0-5 Dallas Cowboys played the 0-5 Washington Redskins, and that woeful MNF game outdrew the ALCS game on the opposite channel. That was big news at the time. So, what you are saying about key NFL matchups is not true. Most, if not all NFL games, garner national interst (I attribute much of this to gambling -- but that's another issue).
It is true that the playoffs and Super Bowl draw interest, but ask heavyweight boxing what a thin rope you walk when you rely on the championship to be the draw rather than the star.
***NFL regular season games saw a slight decline in ratings over the past ten years. By comparison, major league baseball games have fallen off the chart. Some of this is due to many more cable choices now than 15-20 years ago. But football has not lost nearly as many fans as football. The World Series of Baseball has struggled with ratings in recent years, also. By contrast, the Super Bowl holds 9 out of the top 10 spots on the all time TV ratings list.
In baseball, not only is the World Series a draw, but superstar teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs are draws as well.
***All of these teams are coming off huge seasons, so your comment is well-timed. But let's look at these teams in a larger time span. The Cubs have been a dismal franchise for decades and do not draw significant ratings, despite being linked to WGN with national cable presence. I don't know anyone who watches the Cubs games, unless they have money on the game (surely, Chicago is the exception). The Red Sox are a big draw in New England, but they get little or no interest beyond that region of the country. I agree that the Yankees are a big draw whereever they play and are shown, in part because of large expatriot New Yorkers living in other regions of the country.
It is true that middling franchises like my beloved Brewers sometimes pay the price. An incompetent franchise can stay bad for a period of a decade or more rather than having great players fall into its lap like the Bengals or Falcons of the NFL do. It is unforntuate for those teams, but for the sport as a whole, this situation is a healthy one.
***I don't know how you can say basebal is healthy, when 1/3 of the teams can't compete. Another third have NO MARGIN for error -- everything must go perfect for them to win. Then, there are the other third who have the money and resources. Then, there are the Yankees in the superclass of teams, which could lose half their pitching and roster and would still be a favorite to win the division (they'd quickly make up for deficiencies through trades -- where no other teams can do that). About 5-6 years ago, the Yankess were to be commended for being a TEAM, of mostly home grown athletes. I actually liked and admired this team. But they abandoned that philopsophy and are now back to "buying championships."
There will be plenty of other contending teams besides the Yankees and Red Sox this season.
***I would not say "plenty." There are the Yankees, then a subclass of decent teams which includes Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Florida, San Franciscio, and Anaheim. The rest of the teams have NO MARGIN for error, and are longshots. Contrast this with the NFL, where probably 20 teams could potentially win the Super Bowl next season.
And, believe it or not, both teams have legitimate holes that could prevent either from even reaching the playoffs or World Series. Other teams? quest to exploit those holes and topple the Goliaths of baseball will be what makes the 2004 baseball season so much fun.
***I don't think it's fun to watch any game where my team is at a consistent DIS-ADVANTAGE. I agree that every new season brings optimism. But the anger factor towards baseball -- both players and owners -- has reached epidemic proportions. I don't think it's "fun" to be a fan of the Indians and have to watch your entire roster shipped off to New York and Boston every season. Free agency has killed this game ( irealize the courts made that horrendous decision to allow players to pimp themselves to th highest bidder every season). That would be bad enough to kill fan loyalty, but to add the fact of the horrific team imbalance, creates an hierachy that makes the sport NON-COMPETITIVE. Pretty soon, it's going to be like watching Harlem Globtrotter games.
***One more point -- when both New York teams played in the World Series (two big market marquee teams) back a few years ago, that was the LOWEST rated WS telecast of all-time. So, most fans DO NOT want to see dynasty teams and the big money makers getting all the victories and titles.
I'm sure you will have some feedback, and I look forward to it.
-- Nolan Dalla
