It took a left turn somewhere in the first 20 posts. I like the direction it went, though. It's been a fun conversation.:-)
[Reply]

I'm not going to defend Richardson's douchiness (for an example see here) but his teams have been successful in the last decade, as recently as 2008 (best record in the conference). The Bengals? They won their division last year. The Lions are starting to pull out of it, but was plagued by having inept people running the show (see: Millen, Matt).
What's good for baseball (at least in terms of selling merchandise and people tuning in) is if the popular teams keep winning to keep the casual fan interested (just like the NBA). We've seen (in this own thread no less) what happens when those teams aren't represented in the playoffs/World Series.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

Because you said salary vs. salary, not salary vs. salary plus signing bonuses, roster bonuses and player incentives. And like I said all of that money wasn't recieved by those players because at least 8 of them were not on the roster. Its not a big deal, just comparing apples to apples, your contention that they make the same or more is flawed. :-)
[Reply]

I thought we were talking about how the owners spend (or don't spend) money on their franchise. The Bengals are notoriously cheap, spending little to no money on players. It is why players who get drafted there leave, and then come back to hang on for a few extra years. Its unfortunate that Mike Brown is only worried about the cash in his pocket when Art Rooney continues to put trophies in his office.

Getting lucky and finishing first in the division twice in the last 8 seasons isn't exactly a history success when they follow those years with less than 6 wins. Even a blind squirell....or something like that. :-)
[Reply]

I believe the discussion started when it was said that MLB players make significantly more money than their NFL counterparts, despite being the most popular sport in America. :-)
[Reply]

Ok, I'm going to try to explain this one last time, slower still... Did you see? If not, I'll break it down again...
You comparing salary vs. salary is a strawman set up by yourself to knock it down. The only time I even used the word, "salary" is when I directly quoted the source (USA Today page here) which included all bonuses earned for total compensation.
Pleae tell me which eight players out of the top twenty five were no longer on the Saints roster...
[Reply]

Does reading comprehension escape you? Seriously man...
That should about bring you up to speed. Now you can get back to constructing strawmen...:-)
[Reply]

The franchises aren't struggling, that's where your going wrong. The few teams that are in tough financial shape actually use the money the money effectively. The teams that receive it that don't really need it pocket it. What is the MLB suppossed to do, tell a perfectly profitable franchise to change the way it operates because it's making money? Your argument doesn't make sense.

Wrong again Stephen. Baseball fans in many markets have shown they are willing to support their team with or without a winning product on the field. They don't come to root for accountants, they come to have fun at a game. I will say it again, the Royals and Pirates are making money being terrible, while the Marlins and Rays have good teams that go virtually unnoticed despite putting a winning product on the field. YOU might want to see a competitive team but that doesn't apply to every fan. Maybe if what you think rang true, fans would stop supporting teams like those two and they would be forced to improve to stay afloat.
[Reply]

If they're not struggling, why share revenue?
Just so I'm clear, you're saying that win/lose, average attendance will remain the same in, "many of these markets?"
[Reply]

Baseballs attempt to give mid and small market teams a better chance to stay competive with large markets without capping salaries. Team that do use it properly use it to good effect. Revenue sharing itself isn't enough to save a team running in the red, look at the Expos. The Marlins have it toughest in all of baseball finacially, yet they still turn a profit.

Absolutely. You'd see a slight increase across the board but it would remain the same mostly. Case in point, the Tampa Bay Rays. Despite winning the AL east (toughest division in baseball) twice in the last three years and making one trip to the WS, their attendance hasn't increased much past where it was when they were a perennial loser. The Pirates have lost some fans, but it took 17 losing seasons to really effect their bottom line. They still draw a crowd larger than either Florida team, despite being significantly worse.

This applies to many smaller teams. The Brewers, Reds, Padres, Mariners, etc all draw decent crowds whether they are winning or losing.
[Reply]

Tampa and Miami are not baseball towns. There are too many other things to do there rather than attend baseball games. MLB teams don't truly belong in tourist towns IMHO. Yes, I know the Dolphins do well in Miami, but they only play there 8 times a year vs. 81.

So if you take away the Florida teams, I'd say that most winning teams draw decent crowds. I don't have the numbers on that to back it up though.
[Reply]

No argument here. My point is that even non winning teams draw crowds. Thats's why I keep bringing up the Pirates/Royals. And if a team draws enough attendance to stay profitable, what really is the problem?
[Reply]

I know it applies to the Reds. Management put a winning ball club on the field this year, yet ticket sales were only up by a small margin. Their pathetic attempt in the playoffs were sold out though.
[Reply]

I wasn't trying to argue. I was attempting to support your point.:-)
[Reply]

I know Andy :-)

To add to what you said, I do think that any team that makes the post season will see attendance spike. But the regular season numbers will be mostly the same, regardless of winning %.
[Reply]

Now the NFLPA is sending letters to the top prospects to boycott the NFL draft, after one of the proposals is to cap rookie salaries.
I'm sure that's going over big with the guys coming out?
[Reply]

Funny thing is the NFLPA wanted a lower cap on the rookies also, they just didn't agree with what to do with the money saved. But I think they agreed on the lockout.

Funny how the NFL players are no longer part of the NFLPA, and in fact the undrafted players would not be anyway. But NFLPA is still running the show? Please!
[Reply]

What I just heard on the radio is the NFLPA was going to hold it's own draft with the draftees at a different venue, and sell the TV.
It is kind of brilliant, but who would butt heads with the NFL, Ted Turner is a wild card he don't give a crap, HBO ?
[Reply]

I'm sure finding a network would be the easy part. Even if they do its not the same thing as being at the real draft. If you are a top 10 prospect you would be crazy not to attend the real deal and get to walk across the stage. You only get to do it once. Not far for the NFLPA to ask these guys to do this, the lockout will be over in a few months no mater what but you missed out on a day you should never forget!
[Reply]