@the-gipper said:

The point of my earlier post was to demonstrate the fact that the Yankees have a 111 million payroll, and the Orioles only a 23 million payroll.   With that kind of disparity in the ability of a team to pay players....how could you ever have parity. 

The stars have to align and The room for error is razor thin. 
 

My post was just to highlight your point in an actual offseason scenario.  
 

When the Indians have been serious contenders  in the past decade (Back in the 90s they spent money in comparison to others) They weren’t paying the second contract with their “star” players that was the key.  Other Contributing factors stuff came together at the right time (timely hitting, or great bullpen, or starting pitching, and a few times all of the above). Secondly, they did the trademark one year deal with veterans coming off a year where they struggled examples: Mike Napoli, Rajai Davis, Austin Jackson, Yonder Alonzo. Lastly, they seemed to have a guy or two each year emerge from the Farm to be an unexpected or earlier than projected success (farm is the lifeline of these types of teams).

For every small market great story like the Rays Indians the majority of the time parity isn’t possible without the perfect storm for these teams

@sdbacker80 said:

MLB teams operate on different margins. 
 

Kluber - Yankees

Rosario- Indians

just another example of it 

The Yankees can pay a guy like Kluber 11M this season.  His arm appears to be shot.  He doesn’t work he goes on the DL and they find someone prior to the deadline and absorb half of that salary too. 

The Indians pay Rosario 8M put him in the middle of the lineup cast a guy like Naquin away.  And they hope and pray he works so they can keep open an outside shot at a wildcard and produce enough runs for their rotation.  If he doesn’t they will bring up a AA AAA guy in July and hope he works. But they are hesitate to do that because it starts his free agent clock. 

Same Game Same League Yet they operate in two different ways 

The point of my earlier post was to demonstrate the fact that the Yankees have a 111 million payroll, and the Orioles only a 23 million payroll.   With that kind of disparity in the ability of a team to pay players....how could you ever have parity. 

Kluber - Yankees

Rosario- Indians

just another example of it 

The Yankees can pay a guy like Kluber 11M this season.  His arm appears to be shot.  He doesn’t work he goes on the DL and they find someone prior to the deadline and absorb half of that salary too. 

The Indians pay Rosario 8M put him in the middle of the lineup cast a guy like Naquin away.  And they hope and pray he works so they can keep open an outside shot at a wildcard and produce enough runs for their rotation.  If he doesn’t they will bring up a AA AAA guy in July and hope he works. But they are hesitate to do that because it starts his free agent clock. 

Same Game Same League Yet they operate in two different ways 

@ballpeen said:

Just a comment as a general point.

We can complain about ticket prices.  I do to a degree.  My wife and I are pretty well off and it is getting to the point where it is getting hard to justify the expense to satisfy the passion.  I could continue to pay more and more. It is starting to close in on the point at which I have to consider if I want to continue to spend the money.  There is a price point to everything.  

For the NFL, as long as fans continue to call for signing this FA or that FA they will.  We have to remember they aren't using Monopoly money.  They are using their money, and like anyone else, they expect to get a ROI.  It's easy for us to throw a few $mil here and there when it isn't our money.  Only when it becomes our money being thrown does the old ass begin to pucker up.

There are always going to be people with more money who are willing to spend, so as long as that factor is in play, we will have to deal with it. Those people on the current waiting list aren't signing up just to put $100 down to be on a list.  They want seats.  Your seats, my seats, they don't care.

After thinking about it, my plan is to now attempt to sell 4-5 games and hope the demand allows me to make a few bucks more than I have in them to help finance next season or cover some of my travel expense.  I also own the PSL to my seats.  I should be able to simply sell those at a nice profit.  It's the quickest way in to the stadium with nice seats rather than getting whatever crappy seats the Browns stick them with.

With a salary cap, I assumed that the theory was that every team would essentially be spending the same amount of money for its players so that there could be some degree of parity involved. If a team is to be successful in a salary cap league, then it is supposed to come down to  intelligent organization/management and capable talent evaluation and coaching....not just how much money you can spend.   In other words....the opposite of baseball where sometimes a team's success depends on how much money they can spend since they have no cap. If you are in a large market with a large revenue stream compared to small markets, your chances of "buying" a championship are much greater.  Basically, that is what the Dodgers did last year...and which the Yankees have done in the past.  While money isn't everything....and does not guarantee a championship....it can pretty much guarantee perpetual competitiveness.  And small market teams can only count on intelligent management/coaching/talent evaluation for a bit.  They tend to lose their best players after a certain point:  (Can you say Indians/Francisco Lindor).   Their window of opportunity to win a title is often considerably more narrow than the big market clubs.

@hoorta said:

I agree to a point. Sort of came up in the season ticket thread. What the leagues want are casual fans with lots of money to spend on their product. And big market cities charge a lot more, even if their teams suck. As Tex said, Jerry is getting BMW prices for his Ford Focus product Cowboys. 

Guys like Cowherd and Steven A are living in the past. The days of needing big market teams to do well are over. It's a lot more national now. The Lakers won the NBA title and no one (except  Jack Nicholson) gave a rat. The impact of those teams on the league's overall bottom line is negligible. 

Regarding the  NFL- yeah, Browns fans are pretty well- fanatic. Even after a decade+ of suckage,  the 100 level of First Energy remained totally sold out. 

Just a comment as a general point.

We can complain about ticket prices.  I do to a degree.  My wife and I are pretty well off and it is getting to the point where it is getting hard to justify the expense to satisfy the passion.  I could continue to pay more and more. It is starting to close in on the point at which I have to consider if I want to continue to spend the money.  There is a price point to everything.  

For the NFL, as long as fans continue to call for signing this FA or that FA they will.  We have to remember they aren't using Monopoly money.  They are using their money, and like anyone else, they expect to get a ROI.  It's easy for us to throw a few $mil here and there when it isn't our money.  Only when it becomes our money being thrown does the old ass begin to pucker up.

There are always going to be people with more money who are willing to spend, so as long as that factor is in play, we will have to deal with it. Those people on the current waiting list aren't signing up just to put $100 down to be on a list.  They want seats.  Your seats, my seats, they don't care.

After thinking about it, my plan is to now attempt to sell 4-5 games and hope the demand allows me to make a few bucks more than I have in them to help finance next season or cover some of my travel expense.  I also own the PSL to my seats.  I should be able to simply sell those at a nice profit.  It's the quickest way in to the stadium with nice seats rather than getting whatever crappy seats the Browns stick them with.

@the-gipper said:

Once upon a time I was really into college basketball....in the 80s/90s.   But no more.  Because of players leaving early you get no sense of anything from the college games. It has been diluted so bad, there is no way to follow it.  I mean, sometimes the best players are freshmen  who play maybe a half dozen games  (see:  Kyrie Irving).  Even like Ohio State.  I cannot tell you the name of a single player on that team.  

So, it may have been in the best interests of all these players to go to the NBA so quickly,  but in my opinion that has in NO way been in the best interest of college basketball. 

I’m not a big basketball fan, But the NCAA Tournament ranks pretty high for me.  Both for betting interests and the games are pretty wild high intensity with effort at 100%.    I’ll start watching college basketball late February until the end. 
 

I hear you on the one and done making it harder to follow.  Let them skip college altogether the one year stuff is dumb IMO.  OSU playing now actually. OSU has done pretty well this year with 3/4 year type guys.  They are recruiting the second tier guys that aren’t necessarily draftees maybe they work themselves into the 2nd round by the end of their careers and they are well coached.  Lots of depth this year but They have no size. The wrong matchup in the tournament and they are a goner. 
 

The NBA regular season is a snooze fest.  The playoffs are no longer exciting until later rounds (even that isn’t a given).

So, it may have been in the best interests of all these players to go to the NBA so quickly,  but in my opinion that has in NO way been in the best interest of college basketball. 

@mjp28 said:

I've watched exactly ZERO NBA games since LeBron James left Cleveland......I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

I will watch ZERO NBA games next year.

1. NCAA FOOTBALL 1.a. NFL FOOTBALL 2. Indians baseball   in the many rankings that we've done in the past.

My rankings are different. 

1) I can say I've watched every Browns game since 1999, I'll even watch another game if I have nothing better to do. Heck, I even watched 10 minutes of the 2020 replay of the Steelers- Cowboys game on NFLN yesterday. 

2) Though I do follow the Buckeyes, covid screwed things up so badly last year, I hardly watched anything until the Bowl games and Playoff.  (Small nod to UD & college basketball, covid screwed them out of a once in a lifetime legit title shot last spring. )

3) Just guessing, I've watched maybe 10 hours of the NBA since Lebron left town. I must be nuts to waste $180 bucks a year to get Sportstime Ohio on DirecTV. The only thing I watch on it anymore is Browns Red Zone during football season. 

4) If I want to take a nap, I'll tune into a MLB game. My interest in the Tribe highly dependent on how they're doing.  I'll watch as much of the NHL as I will MLB, ditto that for soccer. Tuned in for all the Crew's playoff run, and eventual championship.  

I will watch ZERO NBA games next year.

1. NCAA FOOTBALL 1.a. NFL FOOTBALL 2. Indians baseball   in the many rankings that we've done in the past.

@hoorta said:

I agree to a point. Sort of came up in the season ticket thread. What the leagues want are casual fans with lots of money to spend on their product. And big market cities charge a lot more, even if their teams suck. As Tex said, Jerry is getting BMW prices for his Ford Focus product Cowboys. 

Guys like Cowherd and Steven A are living in the past. The days of needing big market teams to do well are over. It's a lot more national now. The Lakers won the NBA title and no one (except  Jack Nicholson) gave a rat. The impact of those teams on the league's overall bottom line is negligible. 

Regarding the  NFL- yeah, Browns fans are pretty well- fanatic. Even after a decade+ of suckage,  the 100 level of First Energy remained totally sold out. 

And, the reason that the fans don't see Damian Lillard is because he plays on the West Coast....where games are played so late.  That still affects the likes of the Clippers and Warriors.

So, perhaps a note of caution to the NBA:

IF you are thinking of  expanding the league by the two teams (which they should do),  ignore Seattle  Las Vegas and choose a couple of cities in the Eastern/Central Time zone:   Norfolk/Va. Beach?   (Pittsburgh/Cinci/Nashville/KC/Montreal?) 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/216526/super-bowl-us-tv-viewership

Plus 2020 was just a bad year to judge anything.  One thing for sure in several ratings I've seen the NFL is strongest across the board followed by  I don't follow any of these leagues......wow that's scary !    

Oh the NBA, NHL and MLS are practically non-existent.   https://www.statista.com/statistics/1074264/sports-leagues-age

@ballpeen said:

Probably because any bad team loses fan interest when they suck.  There is more fan interest in the Browns now then there was 4 years ago.  Being a larger fan base, NY as an example will lose more causal fans , and casual fans is who the sports leagues are interested in capturing. So with more casual fans in the big markets v the smaller markets, it's in the best interest of the league to have the big markets captured.

It's like that in any business. If Crest toothpaste is your product, you aren't trying to market so much to the person who buys 6 tubes a year, you have them.  You are gearing towards the person who buys 1 tube a year in an effort to get them to buy the other five.

I agree to a point. Sort of came up in the season ticket thread. What the leagues want are casual fans with lots of money to spend on their product. And big market cities charge a lot more, even if their teams suck. As Tex said, Jerry is getting BMW prices for his Ford Focus product Cowboys. 

Guys like Cowherd and Steven A are living in the past. The days of needing big market teams to do well are over. It's a lot more national now. The Lakers won the NBA title and no one (except  Jack Nicholson) gave a rat. The impact of those teams on the league's overall bottom line is negligible. 

Regarding the  NFL- yeah, Browns fans are pretty well- fanatic. Even after a decade+ of suckage,  the 100 level of First Energy remained totally sold out. 

NFL...it really doesn't matter. I think football fans are pretty much die-hards, and with packages like NFL Sunday Ticket available, the die hards won't miss any games of their favorite team. 

@the-gipper said:

Jerry Jones wouldn’t allow a team in SA/Austin. He thinks he owns that market. And the league goes along with his bullshit. 

Jerryworld is only worth going to the finals of Texas top level high school football playoff finals. Great seats at peanuts to get in and they use that huge Jumbotron for all replays.

@texasag1969 said:

The San Antonio Browns-yep this is long overdue and already have a decent Alamodome waiting for them. No more windy, snowy games. It'll draw fans from there and nearby Austin less than an hour away.? Run Nick, Run!!

Jerry Jones wouldn’t allow a team in SA/Austin. He thinks he owns that market. And the league goes along with his bullshit. 

@texasag1969 said:

The San Antonio Browns-yep this is long overdue and already have a decent Alamodome waiting for them. No more windy, snowy games. It'll draw fans from there and nearby Austin less than an hour away.? Run Nick, Run!!

FIFY

Mike

It's like that in any business. If Crest toothpaste is your product, you aren't trying to market so much to the person who buys 6 tubes a year, you have them.  You are gearing towards the person who buys 1 tube a year in an effort to get them to buy the other five.

@the-gipper said:

In the last few days on TV and on talk radio  I have heard a couple of expressions of opinions that go like this:

"It is in the best interest of the league if  the best players in the league, the star players,  play in the big markets of LA, NY, Chicago etc." 

 (in that case it was Steven A. Smith saying that Damian Lillard should leave Portland for a big market);  or;

"It is in the best interest in the league if the Dallas Cowboys are competing for a Championship"   

I have also heard the likes of:   It is in the best interest of the league if the Yankees and the Dodgers are competing for a title:

And I  have two responses to those types of comments:   A.  WHY is it in the best interest of the league that these name teams always be competitive?  B. It is a bunch of fucking Bullshit

A. The Why:   I can only speculate here, but these commentators must think it is a matter of ratings and money.  But why is it in anyone's interest that  a guy like Jim Dolan of the Knicks make more money?  Or that a piece of shit like Jerry Jones makes more money.  Does Steve Balmer, owner of the Clippers really need more money from his basketball team?  He is worth only  70 billion dollars. 

In whose "best interest" is it that a big market team win?  Because they get better ratings? I seem to recall that when LeBron played for the Cavs that the league had no problem whatsoever getting top ratings for a team from Cleveland.   Teams that win get big ratings, be they in  Cleveland, New York,  Green Bay, or LA.

Also,  the fucking Cowboys haven't been worth a shit in over 25 years.   As far as I can tell, the NFL has not suffered one bit from them being suckass. 

Actually parity is better.  And “small” market teams like Jax., Arizona, Carolina doing well expands those bases.  And Most people follow football league wide not just team wide.  Competitive balance grows a base and expands viewership in my opinion where you have a doubt well into the year and 10/12 teams with a great shot at the title.

Dallas, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, GB, etc...these fans can be kicked in teeth and put through subpar football and it doesn’t matter.