Jump to content
JohnD

MASN dispute update

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

The Nats move to DC absolutely hurt the O's tremendously. They took significant corporate sponsorships and luxury box owners away. They virtually lost all of DC, NoVa and most of MoCo and Pg. Losing didn't help but even when the O's had the best record in baseball over a 5 year period, attendance didn't improve to even close to pre-Nats levels. 

But pre-Nats was mostly still the OPACY honeymoon, Cal Ripken era.  The O's were coming down off of unsustainable highs when OPACY opened.  In 1997 the Orioles out-drew the Yanks by 1.2M.  I'm sorry, but you could eliminate the Nats, Phillies, Pirates and Braves and have the O's win 97 games and they aren't outdrawing the Yanks by 1.2M any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, atomic said:

Where did I say that. I said I would gladly replace the Orioles with an MLS team. To me the MLS is more exciting than the Orioles.  You come out knocking the women's soccer league for some unknown reason. I know it isn't as big a draw as MLS currently.  But I don't see why they couldn't share a stadium in Baltimore.  I would see the women's team.  

The fact is women's team has a higher quality of player even if it doesn't draw as much.   Of the the Men's World Cup quater final teams how many had current MLS players starting for them?  Compare that to the number of player in the women's league playing on the world cup champions. 

I don't even know what your point is.  Relative to world women's soccer the NWSL does have a higher quality of than MLS versus the world. But that's only because women's soccer in the world is at the same point men's pro sports were in 1910.  I would continue typing but I'm not sure what you're saying... that you'd convert OPACY into an NWSL stadium and your life would be better?  Or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I just don't agree with this statement. I know dozens of people who were O's fans who instantly became Nats fans when they moved in. The O's win/loss had nothing to do with it. I am sure that some people left due to the losing but it is a very small number based on my experience and opinion.

I'm sure there were a lot of people who followed the O's from DC or NoVA who seamlessly transitioned to the Nats.  But things like those Facebook maps fairly recently indicated that most of Maryland was still Orioles territory.

No matter what the impact was to the Orioles, I don't think that it was right to expect people in DC or Alexandria to trek around the beltway and up 95 for the rest of their lives to see baseball when DC could support their own team.  Any more than it was right to expect Colts fans to root for the Redskins and travel from Odenton or Cockeysville or Towson to RFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I just don't agree with this statement. I know dozens of people who were O's fans who instantly became Nats fans when they moved in. The O's win/loss had nothing to do with it. I am sure that some people left due to the losing but it is a very small number based on my experience and opinion.

1998 attendance: 3.68 mm

2004 attendance: 2.74 mm

The Nats weren’t here, so we can assume that drop had nothing to do with them.   

2005 attendance: 2.62 mm

The Nats were here, and attendance dropped 120,000.   The Nats drew 2.73 mm that year and have never drawn that many fans since then.    Not once.     

So, I could make the case that out of the (projected) 2.6 mm drop in attendance from 1998 to 2019, 120,000 of it relates to the Nats and the other 2.5 mm relates to losing and other factors (e.g. the riots and general factors affecting MLB attendance).     I actually think that understates the impact of the Nats, but it illustrates that losing is a much bigger factor, and also magnifies the Nats impact (because fans are more loyal to a decent team than a consistently bad one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't even know what your point is.  Relative to world women's soccer the NWSL does have a higher quality of than MLS versus the world. But that's only because women's soccer in the world is at the same point men's pro sports were in 1910.  I would continue typing but I'm not sure what you're saying... that you'd convert OPACY into an NWSL stadium and your life would be better?  Or something.

1910?  Ridiculous misogynistic statement.If they had MLS and NWSL at Camden Yards I would prefer it to the Orioles of the last 2 years by a long shot. If the Orioles don't want to compete kick them out when their lease is out and seek other tenants.

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm sure there were a lot of people who followed the O's from DC or NoVA who seamlessly transitioned to the Nats.  But things like those Facebook maps fairly recently indicated that most of Maryland was still Orioles territory.

No matter what the impact was to the Orioles, I don't think that it was right to expect people in DC or Alexandria to trek around the beltway and up 95 for the rest of their lives to see baseball when DC could support their own team.  Any more than it was right to expect Colts fans to root for the Redskins and travel from Odenton or Cockeysville or Towson to RFK.

I was not saying that Washington shouldn't get or didn't deserve its own team. I am simply disputing the claim that they didn't lose that many fans or that it was due to poor O's teams. I am sure that most of Maryland is still O's territory but MoCo and PG (two of the most populated) are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, atomic said:

1910?  Ridiculous misogynistic statement.If they had MLS and NWSL at Camden Yards I would prefer it to the Orioles of the last 2 years by a long shot. If the Orioles don't want to compete kick them out when their lease is out and seek other tenants.

Putting aside all the rhetoric, the football stadium is a much better configuration for watching a soccer game than OPACY is.     

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, atomic said:

1910?  Ridiculous misogynistic statement.If they had MLS and NWSL at Camden Yards I would prefer it to the Orioles of the last 2 years by a long shot. If the Orioles don't want to compete kick them out when their lease is out and seek other tenants.

You are something else.  Professional baseball started in the 1870s.  Teams like Tottenham and Arsenal started in the 1800s.  The NWSL was founded in 2012.  There were two other unsuccessful women's leagues in the 2000s.  Women's soccer is exactly where baseball and European soccer was more than a century ago - trying to figure out if their product can be a successful commercial venture, and how to do that.

Saying that's misogynistic is insulting, at best.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Frobby said:

My simple point is that if the O’s had been a well-run team that didn’t have a losing record 75% of the time, a lot fewer fans would have switched allegiances or decided that the team wasn’t worth the drive to Baltimore.    I feel that even in 2014, we probably had less attendance than we would have had if the O’s hadn’t strung 14 consecutive losing seasons together from 1998-2011.

This is an excellent point.

...and if MLB is using the map I posted as to where a team's territory is, then a huge reason for that would be the poorly run Orioles' organization that has "chased" fans away by not fielding a competitive team.  Pretty soon, our territory will look like the Oakland A's... a tiny speck in Cali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2003 Orioles drew less than the 2005 Orioles.  The Nationals in 2.7 million and they have never drew that many fans again. In 2010 the Nationals drew 1.8 million.  It is hard to identify what the loss is but the 2007 Orioles drew 300k less fans than the 2003 Orioles.  But every season between them was a losing season.  I would say the Nationals took no more than 300k a season away.  Probably most likely scenario is around 200k fans a year.  

The corporate loses were probably the bigger loss to the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You are something else.  Professional baseball started in the 1870s.  Teams like Tottenham and Arsenal started in the 1800s.  The NWSL was founded in 2012.  There were two other unsuccessful women's leagues in the 2000s.  Women's soccer is exactly where baseball and European soccer was more than a century ago - trying to figure out if their product can be a successful commercial venture, and how to do that.

 Saying that's misogynistic is insulting, at best.

Not true at all. I am not caring about the attendance.  You mentioned quality of play.  1910 male soccer is not anywhere equivalent in quality to 2019 women's soccer. 

1932 Red Sox average 2000 fans a game. 1970 White Sox averaged 5000 fans a game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the Nats impact:

I live in Loudoun County, Virginia. Up until 2015 we had 13 game season plans and made the two hour trek to see the O's. Since then, I've gotten married, moved to a different job, and have commitments that make it hard to go up to OPACY consistently to see games. I had some training in Baltimore last year and went to a game afterwards, but otherwise I haven't been much. Traffic down here sucks and it basically requires the commitment of an entire day to see a game. Hard to justify that when the team is where it is. Just saying.

I happen to be a fan because my parents were O's fans (both from the Baltimore area), but most of the people I know down here who are Nats fans now were never really Orioles fans. They might have gone to a few games here and there because it was closest team to go see but they weren't really fans. In middle school and high school I think I was the only person who ever wore Orioles shirts or hats. I'm sure the Nats had some impact on attendance but not an overwhelming one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, atomic said:

You mentioned quality of play.  1910 male soccer is not anywhere equivalent in quality to 2019 women's soccer. 

Go through an objective checklist.  Women's soccer today is a lot more like 1800s or early 1900s baseball than it is today's major leagues.  Small crowds, small salaries, leagues folding, limited history, teams playing in essentially community parks.   Just the salaries are a big indicator - the max individual salary for the league is $46k, and this is one of if not the top league in the world.  I have administrative assistants who make more than stars in the NWSL. The minimum salary is $16k - you can make that working fast food.  I'd guarantee you players have dropped out of the league because they can't make any money.  The talent pool expands and contracts with salary, and $46k isn't buying much talent.  The USWNT players make a lot more, the rank and file make the kind of salary you get as a starting elementary school teacher in Alabama.

In 1871 many of the best players in the world were in the National Association.  It was the best baseball league in the world.  But objectively the NA is a low-level minor league compared to today.

You can wish and want that today's NWSL is a high-level pro league.  But it simply is not.  Objectively it's on par with the BaySox or the Baltimore Blast.  It's a minor league paying minor league salaries, playing in front of minor league crowds, and on shaky financial footing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Go through an objective checklist.  Women's soccer today is a lot more like 1800s or early 1900s baseball than it is today's major leagues.  Small crowds, small salaries, leagues folding, limited history, teams playing in essentially community parks.   Just the salaries are a big indicator - the max individual salary for the league is $46k, and this is one of if not the top league in the world.  I have administrative assistants who make more than stars in the NWSL. The minimum salary is $16k - you can make that working fast food.  I'd guarantee you players have dropped out of the league because they can't make any money.  The talent pool expands and contracts with salary, and $46k isn't buying much talent.  The USWNT players make a lot more, the rank and file make the kind of salary you get as a starting elementary school teacher in Alabama.

In 1871 many of the best players in the world were in the National Association.  It was the best baseball league in the world.  But objectively the NA is a low-level minor league compared to today.

You can wish and want that today's NWSL is a high-level pro league.  But it simply is not.  Objectively it's on par with the BaySox or the Baltimore Blast.  It's a minor league paying minor league salaries, playing in front of minor league crowds, and on shaky financial footing.

 

I think he's saying that 2019 US women's soccer would trounce 1910 US men's soccer on the field all day, and that's almost certainly a fact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







×
×
  • Create New...