MASN dispute update

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[Frobby]

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).

[atomic]

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.

[MCO'sFan]

 

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.

[Frobby]

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.     

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

[drjohnnyfeva]

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.

[atomic]

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. 

[atomic]

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. 

[Mondo Trasho]

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.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

 

[interloper]

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. 

[theocean]

12 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.

 

What are you even talking about, dude? Sure, NWSL isn't commercially strong - but there is absolutely tremendous, elite talent in that league. To look at a couple stats and say it is on par with 1800s baseball is really silly. You're ignoring a ton of other variables of the 1800s - like segregation, wars, a completely different US economy, limited transportation...

Gymnastics, swimming, etc aren't selling out stadiums either - but that doesn't mean anything in terms of the talent-level.

I read back and I'm not even sure what you two were arguing about - but I had to call this lunacy out. Not sure your motive here. Just because women have to fight for equal pay (like they have to fight for in every industry) doesn't mean their leagues are lacking in talent or play. It's us men who need to wake up and realize that we should be paying attention to the talent of the NWSL, WNBA, etc. Not dismiss it to be equal to an indoor soccer league.

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, interloper said:

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. 

Yeah I don't get where he can't get passed attendance and salaries.  Who cares?  The women on the best national team in the world by far are in this league.  I think some people are so misogynistic  they can't think rationally.   Really the only women's sports that have done well consistently professionally is Women's Tennis and Golf.   Female Tennis players make good money and are household names.  

Women Tennis really took off when they fought for equal pay and started their own association. I think the demand for equal pay for the National Soccer team  players will work out well for them in the long run.   Girls growing up today don't want to watch men's sports. 

 

[NCRaven]

17 minutes ago, interloper said:

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. 

I doubt that the 2019 US women's soccer team could beat the 2019 men's soccer team.  Not a sure thing, but I doubt it.