Are Dynasties good or bad for sport?? (long)

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:31 pm

Jumping from something PK said about baseball and hockey kinda sucking because of the lack of as rigid a salary structure as football and basketball, I think it´s an interesting question whether sports are better because of dynasties like the Yankees or worse. You´re never going to get perfect parity, but would near parity be good or bad for a sport. American sports seem to take issues like parity pretty seriously (hence caps etc.) whereas in England with soccer their are no limits whatsoever (my team Chelsea is presently benefiting from this). The thing is, in the EPL you know that there are maybe 5 teams that can win the thing. You´d think fans of Everton would get bored knowing they will most likely never, ever, win the EPL. In the NFL there are some consistently crap teams (can anyone say Bengals) but these teams always have a chance of improving (and often do). Plus the way the draft structure distributes talent adds to this. Then again, if you didn´t have dynasties like Dallas back in the day or the Packers, or SF or even the Bills constant attempts, would people be as interested in the sport? Anyway just food for though. I think you need a balance. Plus salary caps have some unintended consequences--like the Lakers leveraging their market, history, and present team to attract guys like Malone and Payton. Anyone have any comments?
 
 And yeah, I´m bored at work <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_eek.gif"> [ This message was edited by: TheMightyPuck on 06-10-2003 17:32 ]

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:35 pm

I´m not suggesting anything about Everton. They have a storied history. The reason I brought them up is that my friend is an Everton fan. Likewise, I´ve been a Chelsea fan for quite a while and have become acustomed to falling short. Until RA came along anyway (but still I´m a bit nervous about what he might do to the club when he inevitably gets bored and takes away his money). I think you´re right about the NFL being too chaotic but they have a very healthy league. I agree also that relegation risk adds great meaning to games (rather than losing being a good thing--although lottery drafts have fixed this somewhat). The problem with relegation is it really doesn´t seem financially feasible. Relegated teams get murdered financially. Look at Ipswich Town in the EPL. Nasty what they´ve gone through. The thing about being a fan is that nowadays with modern information technology, tv, etc. you can be a fan in absentia (like I am with Chelsea). This creates a situation where big clubs can attract fans all over the world rather than just locally. This makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Millwall has a core of rabid (nasty hooligan some might say) fans that will take a bullet for the club, but Manure has millions more quasi fans who buy kits etc. How can Millwall compete??
 
 EDIT: been drinking and watching the Bucs club the Colts and (moreso) praying the Redsox win. Finally figured out your Everton point. I don´t disagree that in it´s history the English top division had has many winners. It´s just that since the EPL formed only the arse and manure (with the one year exception of a bought rovers title) have won it.
 [ This message was edited by: TheMightyPuck on 06-10-2003 20:42 ]

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:23 am

One thing that would help sports with long season is lower division promotion an drelegation.
 
 If the clippers and the Arizona Cardinals were in European soccer they would have been relegated a long time ago.
 
 Wouldn´t it be something to have the MLB Playoffs along with the relegaition playoffs. Baseball right now might be the only sport that could pull this off. My idea is to have the MLB have a draft of any minor leaguer they want and to ship anyone down to their farm system. Then those minors would be locked and they would play out a season where promotion and relegation would come into play. I´m sure it would increase attendences all over the place knowing that the Mud Tigers or the Sky Sox could be a Major League Team.
 
 Back to the question. NFL parity is killing the sport in my opinion. Sure it´s nice to see any team be able to win on any given Sunday but it´s also nice to know the players that you should be rooting for. It´s also nice to know you are a good team and be able to dominate for a few years when everything is clicking.
 
 Baseball is on the other end of the spectrum. Few teams can field and competitive club anymore. Sure some small ball clubs get the right talent from their farm systems but even then their best players will get traded or FA´d for big bucks.
 
 I think baseball, hockey and basketball could benefit from a Transfer system much like in Europe and a promotion/relegation system.
 
 As for football, the cap system needs to be rethought. Parity is good but it doesn´t reward the best teams who have the talent but must ship it away and it doesn´t reward the fans who see their star plays leave becuase they don´t have the money.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:49 am

Puck:
 
 Interesting points, but I think English soccer is a bad analogy to American leagues like baseball because there are so many competitions within the league competition in soccer.
 
 OK, so your team doesn´t have a chance to win the Premiership. I know the feeling this year -- barring a miracle, Newcastle is already done. But Newcastle is alive in the UEFA Cup and could go a long way in the FA Cup and Carling Cup this year. There´s also the chase for the top six and another European berth, which still is reality if the team gets hot.
 
 Oh, and there´s also the shuddering thought of a relegation battle if the team stays in the s***.
 
 Contrast that with being a Tigers´ fan. There´s no other competition for which to play other than the playoffs. There are no relegation battles. Basically, by May there´s nothing for a Tigers´ fan.
 
 Take care,
 PK

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:52 am

John:
 
 I disagree with you 100 percent about the cap. To me, the NFL never has been more exciting than now. Nothing is predictable, and the playoff chases seem to have 715 different permutations until the final regular-season games are played.
 
 Salary dumping occurs in every sport, not just the NFL. Talk to a Florida Marlins´ fan after 1997 and ask them about salary dumping. Yet the team was able to rebuild.
 
 I´m an Edmonton Oilers´ fan, and I still cringe at how Peter Pocklington was forced to shed the amazing talent the team had during its dynasty.
 
 Small-market economic pressures cause just as much movement by players as salary caps. The days of player allegiance to one city, one team are gone forever in all sports.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 07-10-2003 06:53 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:57 am

Salary caps weren´t put in purely for competitive reasons. Mostly financial, as owners wanted to limit spending period. In the NFL, when certain owners were willing to spend whatever it took to field winners, other owners pushed for the cap so that they wouldn´t look bad in comparison (hello, Bears and Steelers).
 
 The ironic thing is, the NFL is the one league which can most afford to go without a cap. Not too many teams are claiming poverty as baseball teams are. When each NFL team gets some ungodly sums as their share of the $1 billion TV contract, they know better than to claim poverty. But some teams like the Bengals for awhile were way under the cap, so the cap really made no difference in their spending plans.
 
 And yes, NFL parity means no depth, no ability to really develop players and then lose them in 3 or 4 years. The game is all about attrition, as key injuries which shelve key players for weeks pretty much determine a team´s prospects. Cap prevents teams from accumulating enough depth so the Falcons have to go with Doug Johnson. And any non-star veteran over 30 is in danger of being cut or forced to drastically restructure his contract.
 
 But the cap in the NBA, the soft cap there, obviously doesn´t prevent dynasties. And in that particular sport, it probably is good for the NBA to have dynasties headed by players whom the NBA markets to the hilt (Jordan, Kobe/Shaq). Not necessarily good for purists of baskeball as a sport but good for the league and TV ratings (which were declining even with the Laker dynasty but probably a lot worse last year because of the Spurs´ run).

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:20 am

"In the NFL, when certain owners were willing to spend whatever it took to field winners, other owners pushed for the cap so that they wouldn´t look bad in comparison (hello, Bears and Steelers)"
 
 Interesting that you mention the Steelers. I have been a Steeler fan all of my life and I have never thought of them as cheap. Fair and tough negotiators, but never cheap. I can´t remember a time in my life when the Steelers were anywhere near the bottom in payroll. In fact, they routinely lead the league in payroll and over the past 3 years have spent $42M more than the deep-pocketed Cowboys.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:34 am

Ooh boy, so many points to make and debate. Ok, in no particular order:
 
 I like the NFL cap system. While I´d like a little more player loyalty to teams, I like the fact that in any given year there are more than 6 teams that could win it all. It adds to the suspense, and makes more games and teams interesting.
 
 About 30-plus players risking gettting cut and taking cuts: GOOD! If they cannot perform at the sames level they could a few years ago, why keep giving them raises. Pay them them based on performance, not reputation. Even unproven rookies are getting millions, so it´s not like today´s players have to rely on their twilight years to make money.
 
 Baseball has been a pleasant surprise this yer. Seeing the Marlins and Cubs in the playoffs is refreshing. I am so sick of the Yankees and Braves.
 
 Baseball needs to fix themselves. I think the Marlins, Cubs and Twins are great, but there are still too many Brewers, Tigers, Pirates, etc... that are killing the game overall. It´s sickening to see these teams act as nothing more than farm systems for the Sox, Yankees, and Braves.
 
 About the original topic: I hate dynasties that last more than a couple of years. It can be cool seeing a team dominate for a while, but like with Jordan´s Bulls, it got old and took away from the excitement of the game.
 
 I´m sure I´ll have more to say, just give me some time.
 
 -Matt

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:56 am

It´s well known that one of the Rooney´s pushed for the NFL cap. They particularly didn´t like newcomer owners like DeBartolo freely spending their way to the top.
 
 The Steelers do stay at the cap (unlike the Bengals) but they´ve lost their share of talent to free agency. Until they got a new stadium (and maybe even after), they did not have the luxury box revenues to compete in the pre-cap era. But I would imagine they do alright in merchandising revenue and maybe with the new stadium, they´d do okay without a cap. However, the Pirates have a new stadium and that hasn´t resulted in better attendance or greater revenues and greater payroll.
 
 As for NFL vets being let go, it´s not a salary dump like you see in baseball. It´s just prioritizing the cap money, favoring younger players over older ones. Most NFL teams can afford a higher payroll than what they have now. Remember when taxi squads were always in dispute because some teams wanted to save money with smaller rosters? Now everyone has a practice sqaud which is at least as big and most NFL teams develop players in the Euro. league.
 
 Parity is good if it´s arrived at by all teams raising their level of play. Right now, several teams like the Saints are playing with a lot of inexperienced players because of injuries. These are players who might have been 3rd on the depth chart rather than second if teams are allowed to accumulate players. While parity at the team or league level may be entertaining, there is some bad, sloppy football being played. You might see more records like Jamal Lewis´ being set, not necessarily because of great play by a team but because of poor play by the other team.
 
 Is it great that the Bears could upset the Raiders? Yes if you´re into the adage about on "any given Sunday." I didn´t see the game but the local paper gave out poor grades, about fundamentally poor run defense among other things. That is how a team which was winless beat the defending AFC champs.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:30 am

"However, the Pirates have a new stadium and that hasn´t resulted in better attendance or greater revenues and greater payroll."
 
 The Pirates´ revenue has increased. Unfortunately, they have made bad spending decisions and as a result the attendance has remained flat. They are spending a ton more in salary though since PNC opened:
 
 2003 - 54M
 2002 - 42M
 2001 - 57M - first year at PNC
 
 2000 - 29M
 1999 - 24M
 1998 - 13M
 1997 - 9M
 
 
 The Steelers lost players to free agency not due to a lack of revenue or unwillingness to pay but because they weren´t willing to overpay for players. Anyone think they made bad decisions not matching offers for Neil O´Donnell, Yancey Thigpen, Leon Searcy, etc?
 [ This message was edited by: Leebo33 on 07-10-2003 08:34 ]

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 12:54 pm

They also lost Chad Brown, Greg Lloyd and some others. Not that they missed Brown necessarily because they got some great young LBs in the draft. But they might have lost continuity and depth.
 
 The Steelers probably have no complaints because as I said, the Rooney´s were the biggest proponents of the cap.
 
 I think Rooney especially didn´t like DeBartolo but the team most affected by the cap were the early ´90s Cowboys, which lost 2 or 3 starters every year. They won the Superbowl and all their key players were 25 or younger but with the loss in depth each year, they weren´t as dominant as they might have been.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:46 pm

I wish DeBartolo would have put some of that money into the Penguins!
 
 I agree the Cowboys were really hurt by the cap. They probably could have won some more SB for sure.

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 2:39 pm

Great thread, fellas !
 
 My 2p worth....
 
 No-one likes never ending franchises. The Premiership is basically 3 divisions in one..
 
 1. Might win it all - basically Arsenal, MU, Chelski and Liverpool (latter barely)
 
 2. "Wonder what Cup we can do well in, and might have a Champs League place".
 Newcastle, City, Spurs, Soton, Villa, Everton et al.
 
 3. "We are so f**ked if we go down"
 Bolton, Leicester, Wolves etc.
 
 This isn´t necessarily a new phenomenon..the 70s and 80s basically belonged to Leeds, then Liverpool and Everton.
 
 My interest in the NFL and more recently MLB is that ability of teams to quickly rebuild. Yes it means quick turnover, but that happens in soccer as well...City got promoted back to the EPL in May 2002, and not one of that team still has a first team spot.
 
 As for the Bengals, bizarrely enough they rarely seem to have much cap room. I think that their poor image often means that they overpay to attract second tier talent. As for their 1st round picks since 1985, that´s as consistent a legacy of failure as you are ever likely to see, mixed with enormous blobs of bad luck (Ki-Jana Carter, for example).
 
 Still, at least we are consistent in an ever-changing world <IMG SRC="images/forum/icons/icon_wink.gif">

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:53 pm

"Parity is good if it´s arrived at by all teams raising their level of play. Right now, several teams like the Saints are playing with a lot of inexperienced players because of injuries. These are players who might have been 3rd on the depth chart rather than second if teams are allowed to accumulate players. While parity at the team or league level may be entertaining, there is some bad, sloppy football being played."
 
 I think this has more to do with expansion than parity. Keep in mind that if these so-called 3rd stringers on the Saints were made so by the Saints having more depth, then that depth would have to come from somwhere. That means that if the Saints built up depth, then some other team would be even more lacking.
 
 Regardless of how the good playes are dispersed, there are only so many at a certain level. With 32 teams you have the good players spread thinner than when there were 28 teams.
 
 Parity does not guarantee every team will be winners soon (see the Cardinals and Bengals), nor does it mean good teams can´t keep their core intact and remain competitive for a long time (see the Packers and Bucs).
 
 Given the choice, I´d much rather have a system like the NFL than the mess of the MLB or the joke of the NBA.
 
 -Matt

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:07 pm

I´m a big fan of the cap system in the NFL. For me, I was never as much a fan of the players as the teams. The NFL is like college now -- you get behind a team or coach, and players come in and out. Most teams lock up their superstars, too, so it´s not like every A-level guy leaves their original team. Even when Rice and Emmitt take off, it´s at the end of their careers, which used to happen long before the cap system.
 
 I think it´s great to see storylines like the Chefs and Panthers, teams that sort of come out of nowhere to become dominant. Dynasties are great if you like that team. But they are hell when you don´t. I got so sick of seeing the Niners, Cowboys, and Lakers year after year, especially when you knew their opponents wouldn´t be much of a challenge.
 
 Baseball definitely needs to look at the other sports and learn a few things. It´s awful that the Pirates, for instance, had to dump so much talent that´s now coming through for the Cubs, all because of money.

RAMMZZ · Post by **RAMMZZ** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 6:33 pm

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:53 pm

Well maybe the problem with parity of lack of dynasties has everything to do with expansion.
 
 I just can´t fathom that the leagues today in terms of passion and fan support is higher then it was in year´s past. Baseball is rapidly declining and they have been able to stop the crash repeatedly but you know that this is the calm before the storm.
 
 In the NFL any given sunday is good for ratings but I find it ironic that the Super Bowl winner year in and year out is the one that loses key players and is often struggling to make it the next year.
 
 PK: What kind of system is that? That´s basically set-up like some kid´s softball league so everybody is a winner. Sure no one likes a dynasty but hell that´s life. The NFL is trying to play fair so every team can get the ratings to get the revenue. Well TV ratings continue to decline, yes blame it on the 500 other channels you have to chose from but still. Fan base is not like it once was. Let´s face it probably half or more of the teams in baseball have decling attendences.
 
 The sport that has shown groth is hockey and it´s because twenty years ago and even sooner hockey was still a small league.
 
 Basketball is having probelms drawing any sort of sustain support. And the kind of publicity it is drawing revolves around scandals.
 
 I don´t know PK, let´s look at the facts most professional sports teams are having problems making money and maintaining fan support. Not all of course but many.
 
 I like dynasties so it´s my personal opinion that they are better for sports. Of course it´s my opinion. So with that said, Madden Sucks, ESPN the best game I´ve ever played, NBL Live can´t hold a candle to NBA Jam, and EA Sports makes the best games I´ve ever played. *Sacastic fanboyism off*

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:03 pm

Jrod
 
 Some interesting points, but I don´t quite agree with some of them..
 
 NFL - not all teams winning the Superbowl recently have to shed players thru the cap - the Bucs haven´t lost anyone of note, Pats didn´t either. Teams having to shed are those signing players to big contracts which all come up for re-negotiation about the same time.
 
 NHL - I think this sport is in a lot of trouble. Last I heard was that franchises lost a combined $300m last year. Maybe that´s owner griping, but any organisation spending an average of 74% of revenue on player salaries is playing on borrowed time. Players will reject capping of salaries, so I reckon that a lock out may see a few franchises hit the dust.
 
 Dynasties are only interesting to the bandwaggoners that follow them. Granted teams in the EPL have had to buy better players and facilities to try and keep up with S***** plc, but one peek at the financial position of any EPL team bar 2 or 3 would give you the shudders.
 
 Long live parity !

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:25 pm

>>>The sport that has shown groth is hockey and it´s because twenty years ago and even sooner hockey was still a small league.<<<
 
 OK, John, let´s look at the facts. Your facts about hockey are off base. The number of hockey teams has grown. But the health of the sport is deteriorating and heading to the critical list.
 
 Hockey is hurting. The Stanley Cup Finals drew a rating of 1.4 and 1.1 for the first two games last year. That´s Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and World Series of Poker range -- I s*** you not. NBC´s Sunday afternoon Arena Football game drew higher ratings that weekend. That´s God´s honest truth -- I looked it up.
 
 Those ratings for the first two games were 50 percent lower than Games 1 and 2 of the Detroit-Carolina Finals in 2002 -- hardly a compelling matchup.
 
 The NHL could only attract those kind of ratings even though Jiggy had been built into a budding legend by the sports media due to his heroic performances in the previous rounds.
 
 That´s a league that´s growing? Hardly.
 
 Game 7 of last year´s Finals drew only a 4.6. That´s sad when you consider the average rating for any weekly NASCAR race is in the 5´s. If you consider Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals to be the NHL´s Super Bowl, then compare it to the Super Bowl of stock car racing, the Daytona 500. The rain-delayed Daytona 500 in 2003 drew a rating of 9.8, down from 10.9 in 2002.
 
 The TV ratings for hockey compared to the other "major" stick-and-ball sports are so abysmal it´s not funny.
 
 Hockey is headed for a huge lockout because the escalation in player salaries was based on the stupid amount of money ESPN and ABC pumped into the NHL´s coffers for the current TV contract. Well, that contract expires after this season, I believe, and I would be surprised if the NHL´s next TV contract was worth 50 percent of the current deal.
 
 Yet top players still will want deals of $8-10 million per year for a sport that has a paltry national TV contract. That´s a crisis in the making.
 
 Hockey is in BIG trouble, sadly. It´s barely considered one of the "major" sports in the U.S. anymore, as NASCAR has taken its place in terms of capacity of arenas filled, sponsor participation, fan interest, media coverage and interest and TV package.
 
 Nextel just paid $750 million to become the primary sponsor of NASCAR´s top division for the next 10 years. The only other sports that could attract that kind of cake from a single sponsor today in the U.S. are the NFL, college football and college basketball.
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 08-10-2003 13:00 ]

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 4:21 pm

PK,
 What were the ratings before? Sure they don´t match up well with the other big sports but are they declining. And what did the league have before ESPN and ABC, the CBC. Fan base numbers are growing around the nation. Just becuase the TV contracts over inflated it´s worth doesn´t mean that the sport is not growing. I would call it growing pains. The NHL has grown to fast too quickly to keep things level.
 
 Dave:
 I don´t think the EPL system is fair much like in Europe, Barca and Real Madrid can just pick a choose the best players from around the world.
 
 I guess what we are headed to is a player salary cap EPL system. Let´s face it that salary caps are good for teams. There´s always some punk that needs 100 million to sit on his ass and showoff, Alex Rodriguez, The Big Dog, that pitcher from the Dodgers. Very good players at the time they signed the big contracts over over inflated.
 
 This help´s the teams control their payroll. In order to help small ball clubs, let´s introduce and buyout contract for the team and a player contract. If the Yankees wanted to say by someone of the Expos they would reach terms with the Expos over his worth and then give a contract that the player can reject or accept.
 
 Maybe that´s an idea to help small ball clubs in sports.
 
 I just don´t like the fact that in free agency the player gets all the money while the team spent the work developing the player.
 
 I dont´ like revenue sharing, that creates too much parity and really puts a cramp on the system. The NFL has it and I know this was one of Pete Rozell´s ideas.
 
 I guess the ultimate system on paper is the one that allows championship quality teams to keep their star players but also allow small ball teams in most sports the ability to improve if they get the right personel. I don´t think that´s a "sit around the fire and sing kum-bye-ya" idea either.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 4:37 pm

John:
 
 I think you missed the fact that ratings for Games 1 and 2 were down 50 percent in just one year between 2002 and 2003.
 
 And you can throw all the phrases around about "growing fan base," but where´s your proof? I proved the declining TV ratings with numbers.
 
 Some more numbers about the state of NHL TV:
 
 • Since ESPN´s new deal began in 1999, regular-season cable ratings are down 31 percent on ESPN and 38 percent on ESPN2. Network broadcast ratings on ABC have slipped 21 percent over that period.
 
 • Regular-season NHL games on ESPN last season averaged a meager 0.46 rating, down from 0.49 the previous season. That compares with ESPN´s 1.2 regular-season NBA average. ESPN2´s 0.23 average was even with the previous season. Audiences increased on both networks in the postseason, but still were down nearly 20 percent from the previous year´s playoffs.
 
 • ABC´s 1.1 regular-season average trailed the network´s 2.6 regular-season NBA average. Even the seven-game, New Jersey-Anaheim Stanley Cup Final closed with a mediocre 2.9 rating, less than half of the all-time low 6.5 for the New Jersey-San Antonio NBA Finals.
 
 So where is this "growing fan base?" Aren´t TV ratings an accurate barometer of fan interest? You bet your ass they are.
 
 You´re blind to the cataclysmic economic realities of the NHL once this TV contract expires if you think this is just "growing pains."
 
 Take care,
 PK [ This message was edited by: pk500 on 08-10-2003 13:43 ]

davet010 · Post by **davet010** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:27 pm

JRod
 
 I see what you´re saying, but you might be overestimating the financial position of soccer in Europe.
 
 EPL - only MU and Newcastle are profit making this year, the latter through getting further in the Chumps League than projected.
 
 Spain - most clubs have huge debts. Valencia are down by about 80m Euros, Barca probably more. Real Madrid were saved by a combination of selling their city centre training grounds for about £300m 3 yrs ago, plus no bank in Spain would foreclose. Their accounts this yr should be illuminating.
 
 Italy - I´d estimate 25% of the teams in Seire A are bust. Their 4 up 4 down system encourages rapid ups and downs, and this season´s Serie B season was delayed 2 weeks due to legal challenges, then the division was extended by 2.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 5:41 pm

PK:
 Comparing Hockey to other sports is comparing the proverially fruits. Hockey is America´s 4th sport and I´m not going to argue that ratings are low. But there are factors.
 
 Fox Sports Net which draws local viewers away form the national broadcast.
 
 You should know better not to compare yearly TV ratings. A 5 year span of ratings would be more worth while. Yes there was a drop but you also have a few factors. One of the biggest markets was out early in the playoffs Detroit. Anahiam isn´t a large draw for a national audience. NJ might be for the east coast I don´t really know. Second you have this on again off again crap with teh TV. One day it´s on ESPN the next on ABC with no consistent times? That´s like having Friends come on a Tuedays at 10 on CBS then thurs back on NBA in it´s regular time slot. Second if the markets aren´t there to prop up viewship or there´s not a national draw for the game is going to drop. Think Subway series, it was well viewed in New York but they couldn´t by a view in the rest of the nation. Third, there´s attricition in viewship in all aspects of TV. There´s not 5 channels and the nation has to watch one of them. Ratings drop for everything, from TV hits like friends, Survivor to Super Bowls. It´s been delining most year´s now. It get´s the high bleep once in a while but for the most part too much competition.
 
 It´s growing pains, they introduced too many teams that can´t make consistent profit. And they expanded too rapidly deccreasing the quality of play. Add on to the fact that teams moved from well estaplished fan markets to money markets.
 
 Maybe I´m stupid but I don´t see how financial problems are a direct result of TV ratings. The deal was signed and sealed a long time about. It might have been over inflated becuase ABC/ESPN overestimated growth for the league that wasn´t met. And this cataclysmic event that might happen and require contracting of the league but financial woes don´t translate into low growth support.
 
 10 years ago the NHL playoffs weren´t even broadcast on national US television. The league has almsot doubled in size over the last 20 years. And more markets have been introduced to hockey making a national TV viewerhip possible. That sure seems like growth to me. I think you want to classify growth as taking of the NBA spots in America as the bonafide 3rd sport. I´m just saying the game has grown from what it was 10 years ago.
 
 I´m not arguing the the NHL isn´t troubled but maybe that´s becuase they didn´t hit their desired fan base projections. And I´ll grant you that NHL has probably hit the wall like any business with a product, they´ll need to revinvent themselves again, cut costs and look at new potential customers.

TheMightyPuck · Post by **TheMightyPuck** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:01 pm

Nascar is huge. Big TV contracts. But remember it is a bit different than Hockey and other sports that have around 1000 fixtures a year. Nascar has 36. It is perfect for TV because (other than being exciting etc.) there is only one game a week. Every race is a huge event. There is only one Daytona 500 a year and almost all racing fans are interested. The Stanley Cup finals interest core hockey fans and the fans of the teams involved. Not nearly as big an amount. Hockey needs to survive on ticket sales. I think in the future, Hockey and other sports are going to be ppv. This is ideal in my opinion. Have every game available and then fans can watch what they want if they are willing to pay a (hopefully not outrageous) fee.