American Relegation

[lanky316]

For each team? That would be hundreds of teams, something that baseball just doesn't have the talent pool to handle.

[Summers]

So you're saying if an American team was relegated, fans would stop going? Good fans that.

[Matt]

And someone, I think it was Matt, said that teams could build bigger stadiums when they're moved up to the major league? Aside from the fact that stadium deals start years in advance, they are generally funded by tax money. Stadium bills already have a hard time passing in a lot of markets, it'd become near impossible to pass a bill with no guarantee that your team is going to be in the majors. Not to mention sponsorships and whatnot.

Surely you can extend though and they can easily be done in the off-season (so long as you don't get Wembley builders).

And as for what you (TP) said about the Mariners getting relegated there being no teams near you... so what? Support the Mariners in a lower league. Why do you have to support a top flight club? Yorkshire is the biggest county in the UK and we have no Premiership teams... boohoo, we can still stand behind the teams we support.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

It's the difference between the American and British cultures - teams toward the bottom of an American league will be low in attendance, and if they're told "no, you can't play in the top league anymore", that figure will only go down. Of course it's mostly bandwagon fans, most fans of American sports are bandwagon fans.

[Trey]

Most "real" fans can't afford to attend more then a few games a year, and if their team was relegated, they'd still go to games, maybe even a few more if it was cheaper, but the casual fan who doesn't live and die with their team would just go see a basketball game or a football game. Right now, baseball is a distant second or third in popularity and with such a long season, it's absurd to think that a team playing Division 2 (the equivalent to being relegated) would be able to even come close to sell out 162 games. The die-hard fans would still go, but the casual fans, which is who can afford to go to the games, wouldn't be as inclined to attend.

Add that to the everything else that's been said and there are plenty of reasons it wouldn't work. As an example, a "real" fan of say, the Angels might have to travel 2000 miles just to see their team at home. America, as said before, is so stretched out that it's impossible for most hardcore fans to ever go to a home game.

[lanky316]

Being spread means nothing and it'd probably actuallly then benefit the sport. If there is a chance your local team could be a top flight side you're more likely to support them as opposed to the big boy. Yeah you still have a lot of people going to support team Y because they're winning but people support their local boys. I think your pointing out of how "real" fans can't afford to go to 162 games a year shows exactly why this system s better. Play each team of the 20 in your league twice and voila.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

So your argument is that rather than playing every day for six months, baseball teams would make more money playing once a week?

[lanky316]

The arguement put forward was that fans can't afford to go, so attendences dwindle. Playing the one game a week will mean more people go and voila. Plus additional leagues would mean midweek cup games. Is it a coincidence that the teams making most revenue in world sports happen to be teams who play these less games perhaps? When a team like Man Yoo are the richest sports team in the world striaght away the "more games = more money" arguement loses credibility.

[Trey]

True, but the most popular team in the the most popular sport worldwide is naturally going to be making the most money. I have no numbers to show it, but I would bet my life on the fact that when it comes to money made at games, the Red Sox or Yankees make more in a year then Man U.

Over a 162 game season, they make millions at games. Selling tickets, $4.00 hot dogs, $7.00 beer, merchandise in the stores, souvenirs, programs, and everything else. Man U, on the basis of making money at games, probably doesn't come close to the Yankees unless they play a lot of games.

[lanky316]

Of the top 20 teams making revenue most were football teams, with NFL and the Yankees joining in. The key factor is probably American sportsmens salaries although we'll argue about how over the odds some players are paid for being rubbish you have kids playing on £30 million a year. I think that if push comes to shove most arguements against the league structure fall down like cards. I think it's feasable that most of the worries you highlighted wouldn't really be an issue.

The one reason it's going to be a real chore is the way American sport is ran, American teams are started because "we're going to have this sports league". Very few of them have the historical identity except for a bit of sporting prowess gaining them it. People don't support them because of the small community of Thames Iron Works getting behind their lads playing on a Saturday afternoon. To go back now and try to create this scenario would be impossible. I think baseball with it's options with the AAA and so on is the most possible but it would mean a complete overhaul.

I will still say that I don't think the "biggest sports team n the world" arguement holds much, this again shows that there aren't even the part time supporters. Everywhere else in the world only one Baseball team will be heard to the most. The Yankees have pretty much the entire rest of the world backing with merchandise which is what Man Yoo admittedly make a lot of their money from, people who'll never see them but spend the money on the shirts. If every Yankees "supporter" bough a replica jersey I'm sure they'd blow Man Yoo out of the water, if only because Man Yoo have a lot more competition on the global market.

[Cactus Drags]

Most "real" fans can't afford to attend more then a few games a year, and if their team was relegated, they'd still go to games, maybe even a few more if it was cheaper, but the casual fan who doesn't live and die with their team would just go see a basketball game or a football game. Right now, baseball is a distant second or third in popularity and with such a long season, it's absurd to think that a team playing Division 2 (the equivalent to being relegated) would be able to even come close to sell out 162 games. The die-hard fans would still go, but the casual fans, which is who can afford to go to the games, wouldn't be as inclined to attend.

Add that to the everything else that's been said and there are plenty of reasons it wouldn't work. As an example, a "real" fan of say, the Angels might have to travel 2000 miles just to see their team at home. America, as said before, is so stretched out that it's impossible for most hardcore fans to ever go to a home game.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Dragsy 7-0

[Trey]

If the prices were right for the casual fan to go, there wouldn't be a problem. However, I doubt that the owners/fans could find a medium that would work, especially if there's a team that's in a city of 12,000 and tickets suddenly become a hot ticket when the Yankees come to town.

And lanky, if every diehard fan of the Yankees bought a replica jersey on one day and on the same day every third Man U fan spent the same amount of cash on a jersey, Man U would still have more revenue that day. Even if you could shrink the baseball season, which wouldn't work because of the style of the game in my opinion, you still couldn't make nearly as much money.

[lanky316]

Lank, you make good points, but exaggerating points like salary just makes you look thick. Sports stars in general are overpaid, but no one is earning $30 million per year.

Edited May 28, 2007 by lanky316

[Trey]

Baseball needs a salary cap more then anything, at least in my opinion. And as for David Beckham, the reason he's being paid so much is because USA is finally starting to pay attention to soccer, what better way to keep the attention?

However, this is a completely different topic. The Yankees would flourish, as would many teams, but the Marlins, for example, have a payroll of 14 million this year. There's no way for them to compete now and without a salary cap, it would just be the same 12 teams doing great and the rest of the leagues floundering.

[lanky316]

Man Yoo, Liverpool, Arsenal and recent ones Chelski

Milan, Inter, Juvé, a roman side

Barca. Real, Seville.

That for me is a reason for keeping the US sports the same in some respects, I like that with the draft system lesser team can get a couple of key players and maybe become a force within a few years. The way football is now the rich are getting richer but that doesn't mean with good financial and man management teams can't move in there. Chelsea are historically small yet with a lot of luck and money they sneak in, but they were getting close.