Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Miscellaneous Sports Discussion > Other Sports Blitz

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-24-2003, 08:24 PM   #1
osufan#66
Sports Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 26
osufan#66 is on a distinguished road
Default Poll: should teams and stadiums be eliminated due to lack of attendence?

I read in the newspaper about the possibility of a nascar track being eliminated due to the lack of attendence yesterday at the Subway 400. Other teams have almost been eliminated for lack of attendence, like last year 2 MLB teams were almost eliminated. For many people, places and teams are important to them and bring back memories. Teams and stadiums have a history to everyone.


Should teams and stadiums be eliminated due to lack of attendence?
osufan#66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2003, 08:46 PM   #2
#47
Sports Virtuoso
 
#47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: upstate NY
Posts: 2,017
#47 is on a distinguished road
Default

This is a business and like any business, if it doesnt make money, measures have to be taken.

Sometimes, not always, the end result is termination. Not everyone may like it, but they usually arent the ones losing millions of dollars.
__________________
USC Football.........
22 in a row!
2003 and '04 NC's in Football.
33-1, the last 34 gms.
Heisman #6.
#47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2003, 10:40 PM   #3
Marc
Administrator
 
Marc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lake Wylie, SC
Posts: 26,414
Marc will become famous soon enough
Default

LOL ... a poll without an actual poll. I agree with #47, though. Right on.
__________________
Marc James - SCMB Administrator | Sports Central Managing Editor & Founder
Teams: [Kentucky Wildcats] [Green Bay Packers] [Charlotte Hornets]
Follow on Twitter: @mnjames | @sportcentral
Marc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2003, 10:41 PM   #4
Heathen
Don't call it a comeback
 
Heathen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 4,334
Heathen is on a distinguished road
Default

NASCAR :lol:
__________________
Seattle Mariners | Medicine Hat Tigers | Calgary Flames | Seattle Seahawks
Portland Trailblazers | Medicine Hat Mavericks | Sunderland AFC | Calgary Roughnecks

tumblr | twitter
Heathen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2003, 05:18 PM   #5
Alex
#1 Student Section
 
Alex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: State College, PA/Newtown, CT
Posts: 7,158
Alex will become famous soon enough
Default

the only teams that should be elimanated are the folowing

MLB- less than 15,000 attendance
NBA and NHL- less than 10,000 attendance
NFL- less than 50,000
__________________
Penn State '12
Alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2003, 05:18 PM   #6
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

So, Pride, are you talking cumulative or average numbers? I'm gonna guess averages...

In which case, how many, three, six MLB teams would be eliminated.

I personally think that there's no real option aside from team elimination that can/should be pursued. I mean, there's always moving teams around, but that gets onerous and a lot of the time, not a welcome way of getting a team.

In reality, as far as talent levels,etc., go, I believe firmly that all of the big 4 sports (or 3 + 1, if you prefer) are overpopulated teamwise, at the pro levels. The NFL has handled the problem of having the most teams the best, I think, by instituting such a methodology of parity that the old phrase "any given sunday" has more truth to it than ever before.
MLB is on a doomsday run, and I doubt that contracting any fewer than 6 teams can save the majors. You can debate what six teams those would be, but even then, the majors may not be rescueable (sic).
NHL looks like it's on a similar doomsday run, with their doomsday much closer, given the CBA's expiration at the end of next season, and the apparent unwillingness to negotiate on both sides of the puck, as it were. The NHL desperately needs to cut back their number of teams for the survivability of the pro league, in my never humble opinion. Expansion to Nashville, Atlanta, Miami and Tampa was never a reasonable response to the financial woes of the rest of league, and only now does it become obvious.

The key point: Expansion, without a concomitant move towards level playing surfaces (in the form of owner-friendly -- but not dominating-- free agency, salary caps and floors --floors are so VERY important, especially in baseball) is the way to kill a sports league, and in baseball's situation, maybe even a whole sport altogether.

Dave
__________________
mountaineerdave on twitter
mountaineerdavem on AIM
MountaineerDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2003, 06:47 PM   #7
buckeyefan78
Happy Land
 
buckeyefan78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,864
buckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the rough
Default

Dave, it does my heart good to hear you talk about the disasters of expansion.

You're right, football has done the best, followed by b-ball, and I guess hockey, although I'm not to familiar with it. Baseball is in a state where the only thing that might save it is if it gets shut down for a time period and totally revamped and started up again with atleast 6-8 less teams. Never gonna happen, but good lord is that sport in trouble.

I find hockey interesting though. Living here in Pittsburgh, where as before I barely knew the name Lemieux, I've come to realize that hockey expanded way to quickly in the 90s and bloated itself at a much faster pace then baseball, which is pretty amazing when you think about it. The Senators are bankrupt and the Pens are nearly there. Appearantly from what I understand, (although I'm not as familiar with it as other sports but I'm living in Pittsburgh where I am force fed the game on ice), major cuts in salary are going to be needed for the game to survive, according to the owners. At the same time, owners have been saying this for years, but still are giving the players huge pay outs, and at the same time, teams are getting resold for more then they were bought for a few years earlier. So something ain't right there? I have no clue what will happen, although word is there will be a lock out next year for hockey.
buckeyefan78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2003, 05:24 PM   #8
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

Not only did the NHL overexpand in the 90s, they expanded into markets where no interest existed in having a hockey team. Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, and Nashville will NEVER go see a hockey team, even if they started competing, which they aren't/haven't. Carolina was a fluke, I believe, and we'll see the decline in that franchise's popularity again as that team falls on hard times on the ice.

The only sport with expandibility is the NFL, and I think 32 is likely a number the league should hang on for some time. Do they want/need to move a team or two? Yeah, probably, but that's of little concern to me. The NFL's free agency/salary cap combo, while arduous at this time of year, because you find your team cutting your favorite/their best players to stay under the cap, works to distribute the talent in such a way that every year, 24 of 32 teams have the requisite talent to compete for playoff contention. You could say, then, why not cut to 24 teams, but the bottom six to ten of that 24 teams shifts year to year (with three exceptions), keeping the remaining 5 or so teams that are out of it one year back in it the following year. No league, not even basketball, has developed a system that works in keeping all but the worst managed teams out of the cellar for long periods.

I didn't mention basketball in my previous post because I don't follow the NBA as much as I could, and have very little feel for the league's fiscal health. However, the worst teams remain the worst teams, and from a casual observer's point of view, management in basketball seems to be just absolutely terrible. Deals almost never make sense for both teams, and almost no one is ever happy with any moves that are made on either side. It could be that the talent level is that flat, but I don't buy that theory. It's probably more that I just don't know the product as well as I could.


We all watched baseball dance on the brink of extinction last season, and will get a repeat of that dance at the end of the CBA. The majors need to lose a team mid-season to jar the owners' heads out of the sand. I would like to see Toronto just go belly up in May, just to prove a point. They won't, because they've started to manage themselves fairly well, but it'd be quite a thing to see. Only thing better than that would be Milwaukee having to go under league management. Imagine the sparks that would fly then. Selig would HAVE to resign, and the owners might actually start to understand that the leagues are deeply troubled, that the problem isn't all the players' fault, and that they have to shut the majors down for a season and start again.

The NHL is looking quite realistically at this very scenario in 2004. The players are overpaid; there's no TV revenue; there's no one in the seats in Montreal, for Christ's sake. If Habs fans aren't coming to games, then what hope is there? The sad part for me, I figure the new NHL won't have the team in it that I learned hockey from. I like to say that "Everything I know about hockey, I learned from Mario Lemieux." Not quite true, but the first and only hockey team I ever watch is the Pens. Which means I don't watch much hockey, since the Pens suck and can't get national coverage. But, I get enough Bruins talk to know some stuff about the league, where it's heading, etc., to know that hockey is dying on the vine... and the roots may be rotting in the ground.

I'd like the NHL to scale back to 20 teams, tops, get out of the south where they're unwanted/unwatched (and the southwest while we're at it, at least out of Phoenix and Anaheim, anyway), open up the game by making some serious rules changes, and shorten the season by about 20 games. No way the Stanley Cup should be won in the month of June, for Pete's sake. One more thing: get rid of the regional bullcrap. Back to the named divisions and conferences, even if I can't think of any of the names but the Wales conference and Norse division... this East-West crap is for the birds.

Sorry. I don't rant about the NHL at home, and can't find the reason for a good rant on the NHL board. Hockey's too great a sport for the death its facing. There's always this argument that it's not a TV sport, but I have to firmly disagree. I think TV coverage has improved hugely in the ESPN/ABC era, and can continue to get better. Some changes to the rules are required, and, as much as anything, they need some faces to sell the league that aren't worn and toothless. They had that in Gretzky, and to a lesser extent in Super Mario, but are there any faces that the casual sports fan knows from today's hockey? At least the NBA has had Shaq, developed Kobe, is developing T-Mac as faces to sell. The hockey doesn't have this, and needs a current player to sell right now.

Dave
__________________
mountaineerdave on twitter
mountaineerdavem on AIM
MountaineerDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2003, 06:37 PM   #9
lmanchur.
Sports Virtuoso
 
lmanchur.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: waterloo.ON.ca
Posts: 12,579
lmanchur. is on a distinguished road
Default

that would be Gretzky.
lmanchur. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2003, 08:11 PM   #10
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

picky picky...


Sorry. Editing shortly.

Dave
__________________
mountaineerdave on twitter
mountaineerdavem on AIM
MountaineerDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:15 AM.