Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #41
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-08-2019 11:27 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Major media corporations have simply exacerbated the trend toward maintaining hierarchy by playing up programs which attract attention from casual viewers. Thus, the appearance of bias towards certain conferences over others.

To me, the landscape has never been better for G5 programs. In 1988, schools like Western Michigan, NIU, UCF and USF and Memphis and Miami of Ohio were (would have been) essentially invisible, never on any national media and with no chance at playing anything but the most minor bowls. Now, each plays several games a year on national television, and each can aspire to play in major big time bowls.

As for talent, there was a time when schools like USC and Alabama would vacuum up every kid with any kind of talent and suit up 200 or so players. If you watched a big time college football game circa 1975, you'd see a huge mob of kids wearing Ohio State jerseys on one side and Michigan jerseys on the other, hundreds of kids.

Bobby Bowden once said that in the 1970s, he'd go down to visit Bear Bryant's practices in July and August in the hopes that Bryant would recommend that some kid who was 4 or 5 deep on the Alabama depth chart with zero chance of ever playing - but still better than anyone Bowden had on his roster - would transfer to his program. That was before scholarship limits.

It is ironic that we've never heard more G5-level whining for "more access" at a time when access for such schools has never been greater. It's a case of "give an inch and they will demand a yard" or somesuch.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019 10:02 AM by quo vadis.)
01-12-2019 08:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,850
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I have no idea why this myth persists. In fact, MLB revenue has risen 18 straight years, and has gone up 350% over the past 25 years, adjusted for inflation. MLB revenues have never been better, not even when it was America's undisputed dominant sport between the 1920s and 1960s. In 1960, when MLB was clearly the #1 sport, average franchise value was $33 million (in 2018 dollars), last year it was $1.3 billion.

Last year, MLB revenue topped $10.3 Billion, second only to the NFL among all global sports leagues, and more than the NBA and NHL combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...73da1c5bea

What he said was absolutely true even if what you say is true. So its no myth.
Fewer people follow baseball. Attendance is down. Football is now much more popular and basketball is gaining. Basketball is more popular among younger people. College and high schools are dropping baseball programs. The number of minor league teams has dramatically declined since the 50s although not so much recently.
01-12-2019 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #43
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I have no idea why this myth persists. In fact, MLB revenue has risen 18 straight years, and has gone up 350% over the past 25 years, adjusted for inflation. MLB revenues have never been better, not even when it was America's undisputed dominant sport between the 1920s and 1960s. In 1960, when MLB was clearly the #1 sport, average franchise value was $33 million (in 2018 dollars), last year it was $1.3 billion.

Last year, MLB revenue topped $10.3 Billion, second only to the NFL among all global sports leagues, and more than the NBA and NHL combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...73da1c5bea

What he said was absolutely true even if what you say is true. So its no myth.
Fewer people follow baseball. Attendance is down. Football is now much more popular and basketball is gaining. Basketball is more popular among younger people. College and high schools are dropping baseball programs. The number of minor league teams has dramatically declined since the 50s although not so much recently.

Money is the only measure of 'popularity' that matters, eh? I mean, what does it mean if someone responds to a poll question by saying they like basketball more than baseball, but spend more money on baseball?

Money talks, other measures of popularity walk. It makes zero sense to say baseball popularity has 'tanked' when revenues are growing. What he said is a myth. 07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019 10:00 AM by quo vadis.)
01-12-2019 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,693
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 96
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, the landscape has never been better for G5 programs.

Tell that to G5 schools who are endlessly coach poached the moment they demonstrate football at a top tier level. And the toll it has on programs not in the inner ring. That history is showing you can "wait out" an East Carolina, Boise State, and, yes, probably a UCF, and watch them fade over time as majors take their best parts and collude with others to exclude them from better access points. Because, back then, when rights weren't all sopped up, there were better opportunities for networks to follow and pick up content along the way. Especially out east here, where there were no conferences to contend with.

There's more network money out there. Right now at least. But the cost of operations never came down. No sign it ever will, either.

It only looks better because there isn't as much obscurity at the FBS level. Back when you could live in a region and most programs only existed in news print and halftime highlight reels. More got some, but the select few have pretty much all out there.

To the point, I think just moving to six spots would shift the balance just enough. AQ or no, at least you get more skin in the game. And, really, when you exclude multiple time zones, as has happened now more than a few times, you simply damage your data. People think the CFP semi's not being on NYD is a big deal...well, why is that? Because you have teams from across the country, meaning, fans too, watching football all at one time? Tell someone from an area not represented to care about contests when no other options are on...so they can watch 4+ hour games of lower quality football? Pass.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2019 10:31 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
01-12-2019 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
3BNole Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 82
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Florida State
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Post: #45
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
The people who argue against expanding the playoff, to me, are like the people who argue against more bowls. As someone who just loves football, period, I don’t see how someone could argue against more games. And as others have mentioned, it’s hard to say whether it would change any results but it would produce more interesting matchups on the initial rounds. A serious problem I foresee with college football in the future is the increasing lack of competitiveness of teams from the west and the northeast. Expanding to 8 would increase national appeal, even if the champion was from the southeast 4/5 times.
01-12-2019 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 11,024
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 487
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I have no idea why this myth persists. In fact, MLB revenue has risen 18 straight years, and has gone up 350% over the past 25 years, adjusted for inflation. MLB revenues have never been better, not even when it was America's undisputed dominant sport between the 1920s and 1960s. In 1960, when MLB was clearly the #1 sport, average franchise value was $33 million (in 2018 dollars), last year it was $1.3 billion.

Last year, MLB revenue topped $10.3 Billion, second only to the NFL among all global sports leagues, and more than the NBA and NHL combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...73da1c5bea

What he said was absolutely true even if what you say is true. So its no myth.
Fewer people follow baseball. Attendance is down. Football is now much more popular and basketball is gaining. Basketball is more popular among younger people. College and high schools are dropping baseball programs. The number of minor league teams has dramatically declined since the 50s although not so much recently.

Money is the only measure of 'popularity' that matters, eh? I mean, what does it mean if someone responds to a poll question by saying they like basketball more than baseball, but spend more money on baseball?

Money talks, other measures of popularity walk. It makes zero sense to say baseball popularity has 'tanked' when revenues are growing. What he said is a myth. 07-coffee3

Talk of baseball's decline in 2015
http://time.com/money/3772690/baseball-l...-interest/

Article of MLB declining attendance in 2018
https://sports.cbslocal.com/2018/05/30/t...-the-rise/

Plenty of articles can be easily found discussing younger generations losing interest in baseball. Example of one below:
http://time.com/money/3768009/baseball-p...ds-sports/

Point being - your view of MLB is extremely short sighted. Increases in revenue is great; however, it won't last forever if the fan base is getting older and whiter. When you look at MLB in closer detail, the revenue increases primarily point to the fact that the sport has gotten better at monetizing access to the sport. Correct me if I'm wrong, but baseball games have migrated from the networks to almost exclusively being on cable. I'm not a baseball fan anymore, so that may be in error.

Fun fact: I lost my interest in MLB because my team is a small market team that has normally engaged in the fireside sale around the all star break in order to cut salaries. It drives the profit margin from the "bonus checks" given to small market teams by the large market teams. So while my team's owner is pretty wealthy compared to the rest of the MLB owners - he sucks massive ass as an owner if you are a fan.

Quote:Due to Nutting's perceived tendency to put profits ahead of a competitive product on the field, he is often ranked in both the local press and nationally as one of the worst owners in sports,[3][4] earning the nickname "Bottom-Line Bob".[5][6] Despite being the 10th richest owner in MLB,[5] the Pirates have constantly been in the bottom third of payroll under his direct ownership and that of his predecessor and former business partner Kevin McClatchy when Nutting was a minority partner.[7][8] Following McClatchy turning away Dallas Mavericks owner and Mt. Lebanon native Mark Cuban from buying the team around the time the Nutting family was becoming majority owners,[9] Nutting has also turned down bids by Pittsburgh Penguins owners Mario Lemieux & Ron Burkle, as well as Pittsburgh Steelers minority owner Thomas Tull, insisting that the team isn't for sale.[10][7]

He has been the subject of harsh criticism due to trades made in the 2017-2018 offseason, moving pitcher Gerrit Cole to the Houston Astros, and center-fielder Andrew McCutchen to the San Francisco Giants in an apparent fire sale. Following the two trades, Pirates fans began signing a petition on Change.org forcing Nutting to sell the team to someone who would make the team more competitive.[11] The trades, along with similar trades made that offseason by the Miami Marlins, has led to the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) to investigate both teams on whether or not they are using their revenue sharing funds to improve the team's on-field performance, as required in the current collective bargaining agreement.[12] On February 23, 2018, MLBPA filed a formal grievance against the Pirates, Marlins, Oakland Athletics, and Tampa Bay Rays over the teams use of revenue sharing funds, which MLB responded that the claims had "no merit"; the grievance will be heard by an independent arbitrator.[13]

On February 1, 2018, it was reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the Weirton Medical Center, a major advertiser for three of Nutting's papers (Weirton Daily Times in Weirton, West Virginia, Herald-Star in Steubenville, Ohio, and The Review in East Liverpool, Ohio), were pulling its ads from the papers over “the failure of the Pirates to craft a deal to keep Andrew McCutchen a Pirate.”[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nutting

IMHO, MLB sucks. Many owners of smaller market teams are either incapable of competing or refusing to compete (Pirates for example) against larger market teams. The kids are losing interest in baseball. People are sick of being nickel and dimed over everything related to MLB (though revenues are up...lol).

IDK - either your opinion on MLB is overly simplistic by design or you're genuinely ignorant is up for debate. Respectfully meant.
01-12-2019 11:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #47
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 11:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Plenty of articles can be easily found discussing younger generations losing interest in baseball. Example of one below:
http://time.com/money/3768009/baseball-p...ds-sports/

Point being - your view of MLB is extremely short sighted. Increases in revenue is great; however, it won't last forever if the fan base is getting older and whiter.

Problem is, this talk about "baseball is dying out, doesn't appeal to the young" has been going on for at least 25 years. I recall the same type of articles you quote here being published in the early 90s. And yet that hasn't materialized. The articles you quote are themselves short-sighted.

That's because what happens is that it isn't baseball that dies out, it is stronger than ever. What 'dies out' is the younger generation that allegedly has no interest in baseball. The 20 year old with zero interest in MLB grows up to be a 35 year old with 3 kids, and he takes those kids to MLB games. It's the same reason the GOP never dies out even though "demographic change" always is seemingly about to kill it off. Once the 20 year old radical becomes a 35 year old with kids and property, his politics change.

Of course, when that happens, there is now another crop of 20 year olds with zero interest in baseball, which prompts short-sighted articles like the ones you link.

Wake me up when baseball actually *does* decline. Right now, it's never been bigger, and that is an 18-year trend - not short sighted.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2019 08:49 AM by quo vadis.)
01-13-2019 08:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #48
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 10:43 AM)3BNole Wrote:  The people who argue against expanding the playoff, to me, are like the people who argue against more bowls. As someone who just loves football, period, I don’t see how someone could argue against more games.

So you're in favor of a 128-team FBS playoff, right?
01-13-2019 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HyperDuke Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,572
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 44
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
P
(01-12-2019 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 11:27 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Major media corporations have simply exacerbated the trend toward maintaining hierarchy by playing up programs which attract attention from casual viewers. Thus, the appearance of bias towards certain conferences over others.

To me, the landscape has never been better for G5 programs. In 1988, schools like Western Michigan, NIU, UCF and USF and Memphis and Miami of Ohio were (would have been) essentially invisible, never on any national media and with no chance at playing anything but the most minor bowls. Now, each plays several games a year on national television, and each can aspire to play in major big time bowls.

As for talent, there was a time when schools like USC and Alabama would vacuum up every kid with any kind of talent and suit up 200 or so players. If you watched a big time college football game circa 1975, you'd see a huge mob of kids wearing Ohio State jerseys on one side and Michigan jerseys on the other, hundreds of kids.

Bobby Bowden once said that in the 1970s, he'd go down to visit Bear Bryant's practices in July and August in the hopes that Bryant would recommend that some kid who was 4 or 5 deep on the Alabama depth chart with zero chance of ever playing - but still better than anyone Bowden had on his roster - would transfer to his program. That was before scholarship limits.

It is ironic that we've never heard more G5-level whining for "more access" at a time when access for such schools has never been greater. It's a case of "give an inch and they will demand a yard" or somesuch.

Weren’t U_F both in I-AA in ‘88? Not sure which bowl games they could make out of that subdivision.

Edit: to answer my own question, USF didn’t exist and UCF was Division 2, not I-AA in ‘88.
(This post was last modified: 01-13-2019 11:58 AM by HyperDuke.)
01-13-2019 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #50
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-13-2019 10:45 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  P
(01-12-2019 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 11:27 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Major media corporations have simply exacerbated the trend toward maintaining hierarchy by playing up programs which attract attention from casual viewers. Thus, the appearance of bias towards certain conferences over others.

To me, the landscape has never been better for G5 programs. In 1988, schools like Western Michigan, NIU, UCF and USF and Memphis and Miami of Ohio were (would have been) essentially invisible, never on any national media and with no chance at playing anything but the most minor bowls. Now, each plays several games a year on national television, and each can aspire to play in major big time bowls.

As for talent, there was a time when schools like USC and Alabama would vacuum up every kid with any kind of talent and suit up 200 or so players. If you watched a big time college football game circa 1975, you'd see a huge mob of kids wearing Ohio State jerseys on one side and Michigan jerseys on the other, hundreds of kids.

Bobby Bowden once said that in the 1970s, he'd go down to visit Bear Bryant's practices in July and August in the hopes that Bryant would recommend that some kid who was 4 or 5 deep on the Alabama depth chart with zero chance of ever playing - but still better than anyone Bowden had on his roster - would transfer to his program. That was before scholarship limits.

It is ironic that we've never heard more G5-level whining for "more access" at a time when access for such schools has never been greater. It's a case of "give an inch and they will demand a yard" or somesuch.

Weren’t U_F both in I-AA in ‘88? Not sure which bowl games they could make out of that subdivision.

Edit: to answer my own question, USF didn’t exist and UCF was Division 2, not I-AA in ‘88.

Here's another suggested Edit for your question:

The reason I put the phrase "(would have been)" in the original statement about 1988 was to indicate that some programs, like my own USF, didn't exist that year, but if they did, would have gotten zero exposure.

So your question was actually answered in my original post. 07-coffee3
01-13-2019 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HyperDuke Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,572
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 44
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Kinda begs the question why you chose to include those specific schools. If we’re talking 1988, why not choose second-tier I-A teams from that time period?
01-13-2019 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,850
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I have no idea why this myth persists. In fact, MLB revenue has risen 18 straight years, and has gone up 350% over the past 25 years, adjusted for inflation. MLB revenues have never been better, not even when it was America's undisputed dominant sport between the 1920s and 1960s. In 1960, when MLB was clearly the #1 sport, average franchise value was $33 million (in 2018 dollars), last year it was $1.3 billion.

Last year, MLB revenue topped $10.3 Billion, second only to the NFL among all global sports leagues, and more than the NBA and NHL combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...73da1c5bea

What he said was absolutely true even if what you say is true. So its no myth.
Fewer people follow baseball. Attendance is down. Football is now much more popular and basketball is gaining. Basketball is more popular among younger people. College and high schools are dropping baseball programs. The number of minor league teams has dramatically declined since the 50s although not so much recently.

Money is the only measure of 'popularity' that matters, eh? I mean, what does it mean if someone responds to a poll question by saying they like basketball more than baseball, but spend more money on baseball?

Money talks, other measures of popularity walk. It makes zero sense to say baseball popularity has 'tanked' when revenues are growing. What he said is a myth. 07-coffee3

Football and basketball are growing quicker financially if you want to talk about money.

Baseball is losing its base and getting more and more corporate money rather than fans. Its more money, but from fewer people.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenha...0bcd044a05
Franchise values-NFL 29 of top 50. Soccer 7 of top 50, NBA 6 of top 50, MLB 8 of top 50.
01-13-2019 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 30,850
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 775
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-12-2019 11:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-12-2019 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-08-2019 08:59 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Contrast that with MLB where the large market teams can basically buy a team that can compete for the pennant and World Series trips almost annually while small market teams are lucky to compete occasionally if a number of factors line up to their benefit. You can argue that other factors tanked the popularity of MLB like the strikes - but bottom line it's no longer America's official sport and the lack of parity is a significant factor in that.

I have no idea why this myth persists. In fact, MLB revenue has risen 18 straight years, and has gone up 350% over the past 25 years, adjusted for inflation. MLB revenues have never been better, not even when it was America's undisputed dominant sport between the 1920s and 1960s. In 1960, when MLB was clearly the #1 sport, average franchise value was $33 million (in 2018 dollars), last year it was $1.3 billion.

Last year, MLB revenue topped $10.3 Billion, second only to the NFL among all global sports leagues, and more than the NBA and NHL combined:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/...73da1c5bea

What he said was absolutely true even if what you say is true. So its no myth.
Fewer people follow baseball. Attendance is down. Football is now much more popular and basketball is gaining. Basketball is more popular among younger people. College and high schools are dropping baseball programs. The number of minor league teams has dramatically declined since the 50s although not so much recently.

Money is the only measure of 'popularity' that matters, eh? I mean, what does it mean if someone responds to a poll question by saying they like basketball more than baseball, but spend more money on baseball?

Money talks, other measures of popularity walk. It makes zero sense to say baseball popularity has 'tanked' when revenues are growing. What he said is a myth. 07-coffee3

Talk of baseball's decline in 2015
http://time.com/money/3772690/baseball-l...-interest/

Article of MLB declining attendance in 2018
https://sports.cbslocal.com/2018/05/30/t...-the-rise/

Plenty of articles can be easily found discussing younger generations losing interest in baseball. Example of one below:
http://time.com/money/3768009/baseball-p...ds-sports/

Point being - your view of MLB is extremely short sighted. Increases in revenue is great; however, it won't last forever if the fan base is getting older and whiter. When you look at MLB in closer detail, the revenue increases primarily point to the fact that the sport has gotten better at monetizing access to the sport. Correct me if I'm wrong, but baseball games have migrated from the networks to almost exclusively being on cable. I'm not a baseball fan anymore, so that may be in error.

Fun fact: I lost my interest in MLB because my team is a small market team that has normally engaged in the fireside sale around the all star break in order to cut salaries. It drives the profit margin from the "bonus checks" given to small market teams by the large market teams. So while my team's owner is pretty wealthy compared to the rest of the MLB owners - he sucks massive ass as an owner if you are a fan.

Quote:Due to Nutting's perceived tendency to put profits ahead of a competitive product on the field, he is often ranked in both the local press and nationally as one of the worst owners in sports,[3][4] earning the nickname "Bottom-Line Bob".[5][6] Despite being the 10th richest owner in MLB,[5] the Pirates have constantly been in the bottom third of payroll under his direct ownership and that of his predecessor and former business partner Kevin McClatchy when Nutting was a minority partner.[7][8] Following McClatchy turning away Dallas Mavericks owner and Mt. Lebanon native Mark Cuban from buying the team around the time the Nutting family was becoming majority owners,[9] Nutting has also turned down bids by Pittsburgh Penguins owners Mario Lemieux & Ron Burkle, as well as Pittsburgh Steelers minority owner Thomas Tull, insisting that the team isn't for sale.[10][7]

He has been the subject of harsh criticism due to trades made in the 2017-2018 offseason, moving pitcher Gerrit Cole to the Houston Astros, and center-fielder Andrew McCutchen to the San Francisco Giants in an apparent fire sale. Following the two trades, Pirates fans began signing a petition on Change.org forcing Nutting to sell the team to someone who would make the team more competitive.[11] The trades, along with similar trades made that offseason by the Miami Marlins, has led to the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) to investigate both teams on whether or not they are using their revenue sharing funds to improve the team's on-field performance, as required in the current collective bargaining agreement.[12] On February 23, 2018, MLBPA filed a formal grievance against the Pirates, Marlins, Oakland Athletics, and Tampa Bay Rays over the teams use of revenue sharing funds, which MLB responded that the claims had "no merit"; the grievance will be heard by an independent arbitrator.[13]

On February 1, 2018, it was reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the Weirton Medical Center, a major advertiser for three of Nutting's papers (Weirton Daily Times in Weirton, West Virginia, Herald-Star in Steubenville, Ohio, and The Review in East Liverpool, Ohio), were pulling its ads from the papers over “the failure of the Pirates to craft a deal to keep Andrew McCutchen a Pirate.”[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nutting

IMHO, MLB sucks. Many owners of smaller market teams are either incapable of competing or refusing to compete (Pirates for example) against larger market teams. The kids are losing interest in baseball. People are sick of being nickel and dimed over everything related to MLB (though revenues are up...lol).

IDK - either your opinion on MLB is overly simplistic by design or you're genuinely ignorant is up for debate. Respectfully meant.

My interest faded with the strike that cancelled the World Series. And I was mostly a fan of another small market team, the Reds, that with the Pirates, dominated the 70s. Baseball used to be my favorite spectator sport.
01-13-2019 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #54
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-13-2019 01:59 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Kinda begs the question why you chose to include those specific schools. If we’re talking 1988, why not choose second-tier I-A teams from that time period?

It was just a list of G5 schools that have received far more exposure and played in much bigger games in this era than they ever could have hoped to have experienced 30 years ago.
01-13-2019 06:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,626
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 421
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #55
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Since 2008, only 3 teams have finished in the Top 4 of the final CFP / BCS rankings more than twice: Alabama, Oklahoma and Clemson. Oklahoma and Clemson did it 4 times each and Alabama has done it 10 times. A total of 18 different schools would have made a 4 team field during that time.

32 different teams appeared in the Top 8 during that 11 year period. The number of appearances by conference:

Conf...Top 8...Top 4

SEC.....25.......17
B1G.....19........4
B12.....17........9
PAC.....14........5
ACC......6........6
ND.......3.........2
AAC.....2.........1
MWC....2.........0

Individual school appearances during that time:

Alabama....10...10
Ohio St.......8....2
Oklahoma...6....4
Oregon.......5....2
Stanford.....5....2
Clemson.....4....4

All Clemson's appearances have come in the last four seasons.

The Tide and the Tigers won't be this dominant forever in a sport as cyclical as football. I suspect that, if there were more variety among schools making the CFP than there has been so far, much of the clamor for an expanded field would dissipate. And most of what would remain would come from fans of G5 schools. They aren't numerous enough to turn the tide (no pun intended).
01-13-2019 09:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,108
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 207
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #56
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
Despite growing revenues, Major League Baseball has a number of challenges to its long term success.

1) Its aging fan base. Higher ticket prices and late start times for playoff and World Series games reduce the accessibility of the sport to the young fans who are needed for future success. In addition, it faces competition from action oriented sports and other entertainment options, such as video games, for the attention of these young fans. Further, as young adults, these fans are less likely to subscribe to a traditional cable or satellite package (see below).
2) Substantial exposure to the traditional cable business model. The level of local television rights fees and national television rights fees depend on the ability of regional and national sports networks to collect subscription fees from all cable and satellite customers. The falling number of traditional cable subscribers that has threatened ESPN, threatens RSNs even more. This is evidenced by the lack of interest by bidders in Disney's sale of the Fox RSNs. If TV move further towards slim bundles and a la carte programming, this could significantly reduce revenues.

Having said this, Major League Baseball is not going anywhere. It is simply not as well positioned for long term growth as some other sports, including basketball and soccer. MLB did just receive a 40% increase in rights fees from Fox. It will be interesting how the changing cable subscription model affects how much ESPN's is willing to pay for an extension of its current deal, which expires in 2021.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2019 01:29 PM by orangefan.)
01-14-2019 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 29,193
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 695
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #57
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-14-2019 01:13 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Despite growing revenues, Major League Baseball has a number of challenges to its long term success.

1) Its aging fan base. Higher ticket prices and late start times for playoff and World Series games reduce the accessibility of the sport to the young fans who are needed for future success.

Thing is, I know for sure that I've been hearing this talk about MLB's "aging fan base" as well as arguments about "demographics" for at least 25-30 years. I remember when the World Series was canceled in 1994 that to many commentators this was the "death knell" for baseball, etc.

And yet here we are in 2019 and baseball is the only other $10 Billion league in the world along with the NFL.

As I mentioned before, I think many make the same mistake with regards to "aging" that political scientists make when they survey college students, find out that 80% of them are Democrats, and proclaim that the GOP has no future: They forget that 20 year olds eventually become 40 year olds, and when that happens, interests and political positions change.

I strongly suspect that the well-off 45 year old of today who spends hundreds of dollars a year taking his kids to MLB games was, in 1993, a 20-year old ramen noodles eating college kid in to Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails who thought baseball was slow and dull and something only old granddads who talked about Willie Mays and Sandy Kofax were interested in.
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2019 01:40 PM by quo vadis.)
01-14-2019 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,626
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 421
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #58
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-14-2019 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 01:13 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Despite growing revenues, Major League Baseball has a number of challenges to its long term success.

1) Its aging fan base. Higher ticket prices and late start times for playoff and World Series games reduce the accessibility of the sport to the young fans who are needed for future success.

Thing is, I know for sure that I've been hearing this talk about MLB's "aging fan base" as well as arguments about "demographics" for at least 25-30 years. I remember when the World Series was canceled in 1994 that to many commentators this was the "death knell" for baseball, etc.

And yet here we are in 2019 and baseball is the only other $10 Billion league in the world along with the NFL.

As I mentioned before, I think many make the same mistake with regards to "aging" that political scientists make when they survey college students, find out that 80% of them are Democrats, and proclaim that the GOP has no future: They forget that 20 year olds eventually become 40 year olds, and when that happens, interests and political positions change.

I strongly suspect that the well-off 45 year old of today who spends hundreds of dollars a year taking his kids to MLB games was, in 1993, a 20-year old ramen noodles eating college kid in to Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails who thought baseball was slow and dull and something only old granddads who talked about Willie Mays and Sandy Kofax were interested in.

Us old granddads still talk about Willie Mays and Sandy Koufax. They were that good. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2019 02:08 PM by ken d.)
01-14-2019 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,939
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-14-2019 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-14-2019 01:13 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Despite growing revenues, Major League Baseball has a number of challenges to its long term success.

1) Its aging fan base. Higher ticket prices and late start times for playoff and World Series games reduce the accessibility of the sport to the young fans who are needed for future success.

Thing is, I know for sure that I've been hearing this talk about MLB's "aging fan base" as well as arguments about "demographics" for at least 25-30 years. I remember when the World Series was canceled in 1994 that to many commentators this was the "death knell" for baseball, etc.

And yet here we are in 2019 and baseball is the only other $10 Billion league in the world along with the NFL.

As I mentioned before, I think many make the same mistake with regards to "aging" that political scientists make when they survey college students, find out that 80% of them are Democrats, and proclaim that the GOP has no future: They forget that 20 year olds eventually become 40 year olds, and when that happens, interests and political positions change.

I strongly suspect that the well-off 45 year old of today who spends hundreds of dollars a year taking his kids to MLB games was, in 1993, a 20-year old ramen noodles eating college kid in to Nirvana and Nine Inch Nails who thought baseball was slow and dull and something only old granddads who talked about Willie Mays and Sandy Kofax were interested in.

Hmmm.

I'd say a lot of the adults like that who care about sports were probably in fraternities where they started watching it on the weekends in college. Then as they became older would start going to games in whatever city they work and drink cold ones after work like they did in the frat house.

People who are into music tend to get into hobbies. Adventure biking, surfing, building cars, church involvement, photography. They may have some familiarity with it because parents took them to games but aside from a rare occasion probably don't care enough to go.
01-15-2019 03:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shirley temple Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 210
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 4
I Root For: memphis
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Would expansion to 8 teams stop "the same teams winning all the time"?
(01-07-2019 01:10 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  i tought we needed playoffs for true champion
now your telling me tourn don't give u a true champion

It’s not a playoff it’s an invitational. To have a playoff must be a clear path to the opening. With so many teams, 130; or even just p5 around 65 ish. Impossible to play equal schedules. Some play tough schedules, sec usually has 3-4 buy games. Impossible to compare. All conference champs should be included, regardless. That’s the simplest non bias clear path.
01-15-2019 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.