The new baseball stadia in Queens and the Bronx were built thanks to nearly a combined $2 BILLION ($2,000,000,000) in tax-free bonds, which will end up costing the New York City alone about $500 million in forfeited tax revenues on top of the $150 million in state and city tax money that directly subsidized the projects.
Much like war profiteers and Wall St., the business of sports represents the socialization of risk and the privatization of profits. How much reverse Robin Hood plundering can we take?
What do the denizens of New York City get out of all the hundreds of millions in public money that's been poured into these entertainment venues?
A ticket in the front nine rows at the new Yankee Stadium can cost as much as $2625 a game. The highest priced Mets' ticket is a mere $495... though at least their lowest ticket price is $11.
By contrast, the highest price ticket to next year's soccer World Cup final is $2500. So attending the world's most prestigious single sports contest costs less than an May game between the Yankees and the mighty Kansas City Royals.
The good thing is that the fans voted with their feet. Not many of them seem willing to take out a second mortgage on their home to buy a ticket to a baseball game... to say nothing of exorbitant parking and concessions prices.
Major League Baseball's talking head Bud Selig is meeting with the Mets and the Yankees. Apparently Selig is among the many who's noticed the rash of empty premier seats in Gotham's newest coliseums.
Still, an ostrich speaking on behalf of the Yankees removed her head from the sand long enough to refuse to comment. "We’re still not talking about ticket prices," she quacked.
American sports are awash with socialistic ideas like salary caps, luxury taxes, college drafts (the worse you are, the greater your potential reward), massive public subsidies for private venues scam to say nothing of the anti-meritocratic concept of playoffs and the closed, cartel structure of the entire franchise system. Some of these restraints are designed, proponents claim, to keep expenses down. If they're so effective, how come ticket prices continue to skyrocket?
This is in stark contrast to soccer in Europe and most of the rest of the world which has none of this (except public financing of stadia in some places and playoffs in a few) and is much more meritocratic in its overall operations. Incidentally, soccer tickets in most parts of the world are still fairly reasonably priced. The notable exception is England, which has seen ridiculous ticket prices in recent years and, not coincidentally, decreased attendances for many clubs.
That said, it's nice to know that a tiny bit of capitalism still applies in American sports... even if the fans are the only ones applying it.
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Friday, April 24, 2009
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
How to improve baseball
It's no secret that baseball, once THE national sport, has slipped dramatically in popularity in recent decades. This is due partly to the equally dramatic rise in popularity of NFL Throwball, saturation coverage of which asphyxiates coverage of everything else. But Major League Baseball's (MLB) wounds are largely self-inflicted.
Some people complain that MLB's wage structure makes it uncompetitive. The success in recent years of low-budget teams like Colorado and Tampa Bay shows that a properly managed club can win. Similarly, the spectacular failure of high budget teams like the Yankees and Mets shows that money is no guarantee of success. Of the 10 teams with the highest wage bill this year, only half made the playoffs. And despite this complaint, which is more conventional wisdom than backed up by the facts, baseball remains one of the most unpredictable leagues. The last nine seasons including this one will see eight different teams win the World Series. The last 11 National League pennants have been won by 10 different teams.
But MLB's biggest problems are elsewhere.
1) Shorten the games. This can be done without fundamentally changing the game. All that needs to happen is for MLB to adopt the amateur baseball rule whereby a batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a caught pitch. Baseball games take forever. Playoff games even more so. I can't watch a baseball game on TV from start to finish any more. I flip to other channels and then back to the game. If a game's going to last four and a half hours, it ought to be because there's a lot of action, not because players waste half of it standing around picking at various body parts. Baseball is renown for its "deliberative" nature. But there's a fine line between "deliberative" and "interminable." Spending 40 seconds watching a batter step out of the box, readjust both batting gloves, readjust his helmet, readjust his crotch, spit on the ground, rub his hands with dirt and amble back into the box isn't especially appealing to me. And it's even less appealing at 11:52 PM on a work night of a game that still has several innings to go. Just get on with it already!
2) Call the strike zone as the rule book says. The strike zone is supposed to be from the letters to the knees. Most umpires have a strike zone that runs roughly from the top of the belt buckle to the bottom of the belt buckle. A larger strike zone makes players swing the bat, which is what people want to see. Fans won't mind the length of game time if they're watching actual action. Ever watch college or Little League games? Umps call strikes. Batters swing the bat. Action occurs.
3) Start playoff games at 7:00 or 7:30 PM eastern time. This, combined with the game shortening changes listed above, will make it so that games get over at a not totally ludicrous hour. The most important games of the season, the games that MLB wants the public to care about most, are ending after midnight ET and later on work and school nights. I think one of the Tampa Bay-Boston games ended at like 12:40 am... and that was for a 9-inning contest! And MLB's braintrust is absolutely mystified why both ratings and interest keep falling. DUH! Yes, such a start time might make it so fans in the western time zones miss the first few innings. But I'd rather miss the first few innings than the last few innings. If you want fans to care about your game, make it so as many as possible can see the most gripping moments.
Some people complain that MLB's wage structure makes it uncompetitive. The success in recent years of low-budget teams like Colorado and Tampa Bay shows that a properly managed club can win. Similarly, the spectacular failure of high budget teams like the Yankees and Mets shows that money is no guarantee of success. Of the 10 teams with the highest wage bill this year, only half made the playoffs. And despite this complaint, which is more conventional wisdom than backed up by the facts, baseball remains one of the most unpredictable leagues. The last nine seasons including this one will see eight different teams win the World Series. The last 11 National League pennants have been won by 10 different teams.
But MLB's biggest problems are elsewhere.
1) Shorten the games. This can be done without fundamentally changing the game. All that needs to happen is for MLB to adopt the amateur baseball rule whereby a batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a caught pitch. Baseball games take forever. Playoff games even more so. I can't watch a baseball game on TV from start to finish any more. I flip to other channels and then back to the game. If a game's going to last four and a half hours, it ought to be because there's a lot of action, not because players waste half of it standing around picking at various body parts. Baseball is renown for its "deliberative" nature. But there's a fine line between "deliberative" and "interminable." Spending 40 seconds watching a batter step out of the box, readjust both batting gloves, readjust his helmet, readjust his crotch, spit on the ground, rub his hands with dirt and amble back into the box isn't especially appealing to me. And it's even less appealing at 11:52 PM on a work night of a game that still has several innings to go. Just get on with it already!
2) Call the strike zone as the rule book says. The strike zone is supposed to be from the letters to the knees. Most umpires have a strike zone that runs roughly from the top of the belt buckle to the bottom of the belt buckle. A larger strike zone makes players swing the bat, which is what people want to see. Fans won't mind the length of game time if they're watching actual action. Ever watch college or Little League games? Umps call strikes. Batters swing the bat. Action occurs.
3) Start playoff games at 7:00 or 7:30 PM eastern time. This, combined with the game shortening changes listed above, will make it so that games get over at a not totally ludicrous hour. The most important games of the season, the games that MLB wants the public to care about most, are ending after midnight ET and later on work and school nights. I think one of the Tampa Bay-Boston games ended at like 12:40 am... and that was for a 9-inning contest! And MLB's braintrust is absolutely mystified why both ratings and interest keep falling. DUH! Yes, such a start time might make it so fans in the western time zones miss the first few innings. But I'd rather miss the first few innings than the last few innings. If you want fans to care about your game, make it so as many as possible can see the most gripping moments.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Blame Isaac Newton!
I was watching TV at the Y yesterday but someone else had the remote so I was forced to watch the Yankees game. Unfortunately, they were winning; fortunately, this doesn't happen as often as it used to.
But at least the announcers were tolerable this time (as opposed to the last time I'd watched a bit when they were going on and on and on about something Manny Ramirez had done several days prior... and they weren't even playing the Red Sox at the time).
Anyway, they somehow got onto the topic of instant replay. One of the announcers said something like, "I don't mind instant replay in baseball, if it doesn't take too long."
I snorted soda out of my nosing laughing. Because when you're suffering through a 4 hour, 9 inning baseball game, your top priority must be to avoid the horror of having to spend an extra 90 seconds for the umps to get a call right!
I don't care strongly about instant replay. It makes sense in baseball, if it's designed the right way. But the amount of time it would add to the game is miniscule compared to other things.
If you really care about shortening the interminably long MLB games, they should go to the high school rule where the batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a pitch if it's caught by the catcher. The at-bat routine of some players may be comical, but it makes baseball games last forever... and unwatchable on TV in their full form.
If a game's going to last an extra 90 seconds, I want it to be because the umps got a big call right, not because a jacked up hitter needed to spit tobacco juice, undo his batting glove and re-arrange his jock.
**
Sometimes you wonder how some people get jobs as sports announcers, a profession that you'd think would require a degree of coherence.
I was watching the US-Canada Olympic women's quarterfinal match a few days ago. At one point, announcer Brandi Chastain criticized the US team for 'playing too many negative passes.' She went on to explain that if the US couldn't break down Canada in the attacking half, they should bang the ball (forward) to the corners instead of playing it backwards.
The idea of turning a soccer match into a track meet is unfortunately the accepted 'conventional wisdom' in American soccer circles. Americans tend to believe that soccer should be first and foremost about athleticism instead of extravagancies like... foot skills.
That's not what good coaching focuses on but that's what American coaching tends to emphasize.
Ok, so be it.
But then only a few minutes later, Chastain complains about the US' inability to possess the ball and says they shouldn't be impatient. If they don't have anything, they should pass the ball back to the keeper and reset the play.
MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND!
I've heard her speak in person and she's very intelligent and well-spoken. Few people on Earth have won more major international soccer trophies. But if you don't know what position to take, at least pick a side and stick with it! Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
**
Some people like sports announcers who are unabashedly biased in favor of the home squad. They're called 'homers.' Some of the most beloved announcers in US sports history have been homers. The most (in)famous of them being the late Cubs' voice Harry Caray.
I've never really understood the desire to listen to people who are nothing more than fans with microphones. If I wanted to listen to Joe Six Pack spout off ignorantly, I'd watch the game at a bar. The point of having TV announcers is to bring something that the ordinary fan can't get by watching on his own.
I loathe announcers who insult my intelligence. If Joe Homeboy takes a cheap shot at his opponent, I'm yelling at him for doing something stupid and costing my team. I don't want to listen to some a** kisser saying he got screwed by the officials or that he was 'unlucky.' Have the balls to say he took a cheap shot at the other guy. If I see something plain as day with my own two eyes, don't tell me I saw something else.
The Boston Bruins' old color guy Derek Sanderson was infamous for that. When an opponent took a cheap shot at a Boston player, he'd scream with outrage and demand the guy be expelled from the league and castrated to boot. When a Boston player did the exact same thing, he'd chuckle, "Boys will be boys."
I'm a Bruins' fan but I couldn't stand him. The only saving grace was that he was partnered with Hall of Fame announcer Fred Cusick, who was the epitome of class in broadcasting... except for the very end when he descended into homerism himself.
New England's soccer team has a similar odd couple: the best color guy in the league (Greg Lalas) combined with the most shameless, Kool-Aid drinking, propaganda spewing suckup in the league (Brad Feldman).
I was watching New England's match in San Jose on Saturday, though it was with San Jose's broadcasting crew. Every time a New England player went down, the SJ color man whined about it being a 'dive.' A SJ defender kicked the ankle of the NE forward who fell down. Not hard, but there was enough contact that the smaller NE player, going at full speed weaving through the defense, was knocked over. But the color guy didn't seem to notice the kick, so of course it was a 'dive.'
Get a clue!
Listen, I hate diving as much as anyone. I think it's an affront to the game. BUT... just because a player goes down doesn't mean it's a dive... even if the contact appears to be minimal.
Think about it. You're running as fast as you can, trying to stay balanced enough to closely control a soccer ball with your feet. This is hard enough to do when there's nobody around. Try it sometime if you think otherwise.
You're probably a little smaller because those players tend to be quicker. If you're going at top speed, it doesn't take much contact to knock you off balance, especially when you're trying to stay close enough to the ball and especially if you're smaller.
There certainly is real diving that occurs in soccer. But not every time a guy goes to ground is a dive. Sometimes is nothing more than the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
But at least the announcers were tolerable this time (as opposed to the last time I'd watched a bit when they were going on and on and on about something Manny Ramirez had done several days prior... and they weren't even playing the Red Sox at the time).
Anyway, they somehow got onto the topic of instant replay. One of the announcers said something like, "I don't mind instant replay in baseball, if it doesn't take too long."
I snorted soda out of my nosing laughing. Because when you're suffering through a 4 hour, 9 inning baseball game, your top priority must be to avoid the horror of having to spend an extra 90 seconds for the umps to get a call right!
I don't care strongly about instant replay. It makes sense in baseball, if it's designed the right way. But the amount of time it would add to the game is miniscule compared to other things.
If you really care about shortening the interminably long MLB games, they should go to the high school rule where the batter is not allowed to step out of the batter's box after a pitch if it's caught by the catcher. The at-bat routine of some players may be comical, but it makes baseball games last forever... and unwatchable on TV in their full form.
If a game's going to last an extra 90 seconds, I want it to be because the umps got a big call right, not because a jacked up hitter needed to spit tobacco juice, undo his batting glove and re-arrange his jock.
**
Sometimes you wonder how some people get jobs as sports announcers, a profession that you'd think would require a degree of coherence.
I was watching the US-Canada Olympic women's quarterfinal match a few days ago. At one point, announcer Brandi Chastain criticized the US team for 'playing too many negative passes.' She went on to explain that if the US couldn't break down Canada in the attacking half, they should bang the ball (forward) to the corners instead of playing it backwards.
The idea of turning a soccer match into a track meet is unfortunately the accepted 'conventional wisdom' in American soccer circles. Americans tend to believe that soccer should be first and foremost about athleticism instead of extravagancies like... foot skills.
That's not what good coaching focuses on but that's what American coaching tends to emphasize.
Ok, so be it.
But then only a few minutes later, Chastain complains about the US' inability to possess the ball and says they shouldn't be impatient. If they don't have anything, they should pass the ball back to the keeper and reset the play.
MAKE UP YOUR BLOODY MIND!
I've heard her speak in person and she's very intelligent and well-spoken. Few people on Earth have won more major international soccer trophies. But if you don't know what position to take, at least pick a side and stick with it! Or better yet, keep your mouth shut.
**
Some people like sports announcers who are unabashedly biased in favor of the home squad. They're called 'homers.' Some of the most beloved announcers in US sports history have been homers. The most (in)famous of them being the late Cubs' voice Harry Caray.
I've never really understood the desire to listen to people who are nothing more than fans with microphones. If I wanted to listen to Joe Six Pack spout off ignorantly, I'd watch the game at a bar. The point of having TV announcers is to bring something that the ordinary fan can't get by watching on his own.
I loathe announcers who insult my intelligence. If Joe Homeboy takes a cheap shot at his opponent, I'm yelling at him for doing something stupid and costing my team. I don't want to listen to some a** kisser saying he got screwed by the officials or that he was 'unlucky.' Have the balls to say he took a cheap shot at the other guy. If I see something plain as day with my own two eyes, don't tell me I saw something else.
The Boston Bruins' old color guy Derek Sanderson was infamous for that. When an opponent took a cheap shot at a Boston player, he'd scream with outrage and demand the guy be expelled from the league and castrated to boot. When a Boston player did the exact same thing, he'd chuckle, "Boys will be boys."
I'm a Bruins' fan but I couldn't stand him. The only saving grace was that he was partnered with Hall of Fame announcer Fred Cusick, who was the epitome of class in broadcasting... except for the very end when he descended into homerism himself.
New England's soccer team has a similar odd couple: the best color guy in the league (Greg Lalas) combined with the most shameless, Kool-Aid drinking, propaganda spewing suckup in the league (Brad Feldman).
I was watching New England's match in San Jose on Saturday, though it was with San Jose's broadcasting crew. Every time a New England player went down, the SJ color man whined about it being a 'dive.' A SJ defender kicked the ankle of the NE forward who fell down. Not hard, but there was enough contact that the smaller NE player, going at full speed weaving through the defense, was knocked over. But the color guy didn't seem to notice the kick, so of course it was a 'dive.'
Get a clue!
Listen, I hate diving as much as anyone. I think it's an affront to the game. BUT... just because a player goes down doesn't mean it's a dive... even if the contact appears to be minimal.
Think about it. You're running as fast as you can, trying to stay balanced enough to closely control a soccer ball with your feet. This is hard enough to do when there's nobody around. Try it sometime if you think otherwise.
You're probably a little smaller because those players tend to be quicker. If you're going at top speed, it doesn't take much contact to knock you off balance, especially when you're trying to stay close enough to the ball and especially if you're smaller.
There certainly is real diving that occurs in soccer. But not every time a guy goes to ground is a dive. Sometimes is nothing more than the LAWS OF PHYSICS.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Cheats
Soccer is not infested with drugs cheats like cycling, athletics, the National Football League and Major League Baseball. And it's not a hotbed of hoodlum culture (at least among the players) like the NFL and Non-Basketball Association.
Soccer players taking dives is obnoxious, but it's a dishonesty that's ultimately trivial compared to the dishonesty plaguing "real American" sports.
Diving won't kill you... or land you in jail.
Soccer players taking dives is obnoxious, but it's a dishonesty that's ultimately trivial compared to the dishonesty plaguing "real American" sports.
Diving won't kill you... or land you in jail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)