Boswell on Attendance

[mojmann]

Well, first of all, I have never asserted that anyone predicted sellouts every night. You're doing what a good debater does, you're taking the extreme and saying, "See, you're wrong."

Of course, sellouts every night would be ludicrous.

I did say the predictions were for massive crowds, and I certainly bought into it. I certainly thought the Nats would be the hot new thing in a trendy town such as D.C., and I thought the heat from their arrival would keep attendance high for at least a couple of years.

Second, at no time did I ever say that the Nationals were the No. 1 cause of the Orioles' attendance woes last season and this season.

I think you would have to be blind to think the Nationals have caused no dropoff in the Orioles' attendance. But I wholeheartedly agree that the Orioles' lack of success is by far the No. 1 reason for the dropoff in attendance at Camden Yards.

Over time, as the Nationals do the things a stable team does, I worry that they will take a significant number of fans from the Orioles. And that brings us full circle to the issue of: Is this area big enough to support two teams?

My point never has been that bad teams in each city will succeed. I agree, bad teams just about anywhere are going to fail to draw big crowds.

What I worry about is whether this area can support two good teams, and when I say that, I have to ask: Which comes first, the good team or the crowd?

Without a good team, you don't draw, so you can't afford to pay for excellent players; but without excellent players, you can't have a good team.

I just see the Orioles and Nationals each chasing their tails for the next, oh, century or so, or at least until Cal Ripken Jr.'s son breaks Cal's record of 2,632.

Two teams can thrive in New York and in LA because both of those areas have gigantic populations. The Cubs and White Sox (of late) can co-exist because they can compete for division titles without trying to keep financial pace with teams such as the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox. The Oakland-SF situation is never very comfortable for either team, and I suspect the Giants will lose a lot of their attendance once Bonds leaves.

I sure hope I'm wrong about the threat the Nationals pose. I sure hope either Angelos wakes up (um, yeah, I know, but I hope that anyway), or we get a better owner, and he or she fulfills the promises Angelos made, to keep us competitive.

I sure hope that, when we do have a better owner (a wide-awake Angelos or someone else), we'll chart a smart course toward excellence, and both the Orioles and the Nationals will thrive.

I simply have serious doubts about that outcome, and I think the presence of the Nationals makes it even more doubtful.

Thank you, Jim. You have argued the point much better than I can.

[jim busby]

This is true, Frobby. And they all showing that they stink as long-term baseball markets.

Baseball should never have expanded in 1993 or 1998. But they wanted the quick payoff.

Baseball should never have moved to D.C., within 35 miles of Baltimore. But, again, they want the quick payoff.

Baltimore isn't the only one that's going to pay for this short-sightedness. I think we're seeing a hint of that now.

Angelos was completely right. Instead of one franchise on solid financial footing, baseball has created two franchises that will constantly struggle unless they're winning.

Excellent point about the weakness of the support in those four areas, Moj.

[Frobby]

Angelos was completely right. Instead of one franchise on solid financial footing, baseball has created two franchises that will constantly struggle unless they're winning.

I can see why you (and jimbusby) would have this concern. Thing is, I have a lot of confidence and faith in the loyalty of Oriole fans -- to a point.

I don't think the Orioles need to be constant, consistent winners is order to draw well. What they need is not to be constant, consistent losers. And I just don't think that has much to do with the Nats. Let's review.

1999 -- Attendance down 251,000 after 2nd straight losing season

2000 -- Attendance down another 136,000 after 3rd straight losing season

2001 -- Attendance down another 202,000 after 4th straight losing season

2002 -- Attendance down another 412,000 after 5th straight losing season

2003 -- Attendance down another 228,000 after 6th straight losing season

2004 -- Attendance up 289,000 after 7th straight losing season

2005 -- Attendance down another 119,000 after 8th straight losing season

Last year's drop, in the Nats' first year, actually was the smallest the Orioles have had in the last 7 years, except for the one year that attendance increased. The one increase was fueled by the Tejada, Lopez and Palmeiro acquisitions in the offseason, and it also didn't hurt that the Orioles actually played above .500 ball in the 2nd half for the first time in about 5 years. And last year,the O's were about even with their 2004 attendance pace until the Raffy scandal hit and the team played like dogs for the final 2 months.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Nats aren't hurting O's attendance. Last year the team probably would have had an attendance increase, not a decrease, but for the Nats. But I firmly believe that all the O's need to do is put a decent product on the field, not even every year but at least some of the time, and their attendance will increase signficantly. And if they don't put a decent team on the field, I don't want to hear that it is because of the Nats, because this has gone on for too long.

[osfan83]

This is what it boils down to. How well can a team draw when things are not going well. Small cities will turn out in big numbers to see a great team.

But the economics of baseball are such that big spending teams win more often, and all ofthe big markets already have teams. So any new teams will most likely be in secondary markets (outside of the top 10-15 markets) like Phoenix, Denver, and Tampa. Sure these team will do great when they are making playoff runs... but as players salaries continue to escalate, many of these markets won't be able to buy the top talent, leaving them to put less talented team on the field. Now you have the double whammy, smaller populations to draw from, and a less than successful team.

This is the problem that MLB has created in Balt/Wash. Unless the owners of these team step up and aquire talent on par with the Yanks, Sox and Mets, these teams will be mediocre most of the time. How well can the Balt/Wash area support two mediocre teams? I guess we will find out.

[Mark Carver]

Finally, it is normal for a team in a new city to have an attendance drop in its second year, when some of the novelty has worn off. Just look at the 4 most recent expansion teams:

Tampa -38%

Florida -37%

Colorado -27%

Arizona -16%

Your numbers for the Marlins and Rockies are wrong as 1994 (their 2nd year) was the strike shortened season and they didn't play a full 81 home games.

Florida Marlins

1993 - 3,064,847 @ 81 home games = 37,838 average

1994 - 1,937,467 @ 59 home games = 32,838 average

Colorado Rockies

1993 - 4,483,350 @ 81 home games = 55,350 average

1994 - 3,281,511 @ 57 home games = 57,570 average

The Rockies actually drew 2,000+ more in attendance on a per game basis from their 1st year and the Marlins drew only 5,000 less in attendance on a per game from their 1st year.

Info from Retrosheet and www.baseball-reference.com

[osfan83]

I can see why you (and jimbusby) would have this concern. Thing is, I have a lot of confidence and faith in the loyalty of Oriole fans -- to a point.

I don't think the Orioles need to be constant, consistent winners is order to draw well. What they need is not to be constant, consistent losers. And I just don't think that has much to do with the Nats. Let's review.

1999 -- Attendance down 251,000 after 2nd straight losing season

2000 -- Attendance down another 136,000 after 3rd straight losing season

2001 -- Attendance down another 202,000 after 4th straight losing season

2002 -- Attendance down another 412,000 after 5th straight losing season

2003 -- Attendance down another 228,000 after 6th straight losing season

2004 -- Attendance up 289,000 after 7th straight losing season

2005 -- Attendance down another 119,000 after 8th straight losing season

Last year's drop, in the Nats' first year, actually was the smallest the Orioles have had in the last 7 years, except for the one year that attendance increased. The one increase was fueled by the Tejada, Lopez and Palmeiro acquisitions in the offseason, and it also didn't hurt that the Orioles actually played above .500 ball in the 2nd half for the first time in about 5 years. And last year,the O's were about even with their 2004 attendance pace until the Raffy scandal hit and the team played like dogs for the final 2 months.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Nats aren't hurting O's attendance. Last year the team probably would have had an attendance increase, not a decrease, but for the Nats. But I firmly believe that all the O's need to do is put a decent product on the field, not even every year but at least some of the time, and their attendance will increase signficantly. And if they don't put a decent team on the field, I don't want to hear that it is because of the Nats, because this has gone on for too long.

What needs to happen is, MLB needs to prove to fans in Baltimore, Tampa, and Toronto that the Yanks and Sox won't be 1-2, 9 out of every 10 years. The longer these teams continue to dominate the division, the more casual fans will say.."what the use, we already know who will finish 1-2."

[Frobby]

Your numbers for the Marlins and Rockies are wrong as 1994 (their 2nd year) was the strike shortened season and they didn't play a full 81 home games.

Oops -- I should have noticed that. Thanks for pointing that out.

[mojmann]

You know how baseball can cure all of this?

Dare I say it ... a salary cap with an NFL-style revenue-sharing system.

But nobody has the guts to do it. Pete Rozelle used to say that your league is only as strong as your weakest team.

So, right now, despite the smoke and mirrors, MLB is about as strong as Tampa Bay.

[Frobby]

You know how baseball can cure all of this?

Dare I say it ... a salary cap with an NFL-style revenue-sharing system.

But nobody has the guts to do it. Pete Rozelle used to say that your league is only as strong as your weakest team.

So, right now, despite the smoke and mirrors, MLB is about as strong as Tampa Bay.

I used to be dead set against this idea. I was brought up to believe that you should earn what someone is willing to pay you, without any artificial restrictions. But the Yankees' spending, especially over the last 5-6 years, has made a mockery of things.

[TinCup]

I used to be dead set against this idea. I was brought up to believe that you should earn what someone is willing to pay you, without any artificial restrictions. But the Yankees' spending, especially over the last 5-6 years, has made a mockery of things.

The salary structure in general is a bit of a mockery. Did not I read that 3 million is now the average salary for baseball?

[osfan83]

I used to be dead set against this idea. I was brought up to believe that you should earn what someone is willing to pay you, without any artificial restrictions. But the Yankees' spending, especially over the last 5-6 years, has made a mockery of things.

In a real capitolist system, I agree... let the employee make whatever someone is willing to pay.

But sports leagues are different. The Yanks need compitition to survive. And the other teams need to beleive they can win to survive.

If you treat the Yanks like the Globetrotters, making them a traveling attraction, OK, but you can't run a LEAGUE like that.

It would be like NASCAR alowing one driver to use an expensive engine that will go 200 MPH, and everyone else can only use an engine that goes 100 MPH.

[TonySoprano]

What baseball needs to do is what they do in the NFL, and I'm not talking salary cap. They need to pool all television revenue and distribute it equally amongst all the teams. This will force teams like the Yankees and Red Sox to cut payroll as they will take a hit on their revenue.

[osfan83]

What baseball needs to do is what they do in the NFL, and I'm not talking salary cap. They need to pool all television revenue and distribute it equally amongst all the teams. This will force teams like the Yankees and Red Sox to cut payroll as they will take a hit on their revenue.

While I agree the NFL system is the best, the problem is almost ALL NFL TV money comes from the national contracts.

Most Baseball TV money comes from local deals, and owners like Steinbrenner argue (and rightly so) that he paid more at the time for the Yankess because he knew the TV revenue potential of New York. The owner of the Royals paid much less for the team, then it would have costto buy the Yanks.

I don't think you can ask the owners to share local TV money. But I do think you can ask the owners and players to set some spending limits, in increase parity. This will benifit players in the long run, because more healthy franchises means more teams that will survive in the league, and better attendance for the smaller market teams giving them more money to spend.

And while Steinbrenner may win fewer division titles, he will still not have to share the tremendous profits the YES networks generates.

[RShack]

While I agree the NFL system is the best, the problem is almost ALL NFL TV money comes from the national contracts.

Most Baseball TV money comes from local deals, and owners like Steinbrenner argue (and rightly so) that he paid more at the time for the Yankess because he knew the TV revenue potential of New York. The owner of the Royals paid much less for the team, then it would have costto buy the Yanks.

I don't think you can ask the owners to share local TV money. But I do think you can ask the owners and players to set some spending limits, in increase parity. This will benifit players in the long run, because more healthy franchises means more teams that will survive in the league, and better attendance for the smaller market teams giving them more money to spend.

And while Steinbrenner may win fewer division titles, he will still not have to share the tremendous profits the YES networks generates.

This is treating the symptom, not the cause, and is mainly a tool to protect the owners from their own stupidity.

I agree that the NFL-moment for one national TV contract is probably gone. The only possible way that MLB could do that is by virtue of their anti-trust exemption. If a commissionar had balls, he could try it. But it's sure not something that Bumbling Bud is gonna do. Plus, you can legitimately say it is unfair. The Yankees *should* have more money because of their larger market.

It's not disparity that makes it suck, it's the extremeness of it. I think there is a more-moderate way to fix the extreme disparity. It involves 3 things:

1. The main thing: make the teams split local TV net-revenue 50/50 with the rest. (This makes sense and is fair because the Yankees won't make a dime from TV money without a visiting team to play.) Each team keeps half their TV money and pays the other half into a pool of money. Then, every team gets a share of that pool. This makes the Yankees only twice as rich as the others.

2. A secondary thing: put an AL team in the Meadowlands. Move TAM there. This would dilute the NYY pie.

3. The other main thing: Require teams to invest their share of the pie into the roster, not the owner's pocket, else they don't get their share of the pool.

These actions would impact the cause of the problem, not just the superficial symptoms.

FA salaries are, in and of themselves, not the cause. It's the way the owners have constructed a system that makes FA salaries go crazy. The only reason the salaries are so high is that the owners didn't listen to Charley Finley: he told them that their own insistance on the *way* to handle FA is what would drive player salaries thru the roof. He was right. If they had done what Finley said, a small market team could compete. But the owners were, as usual, too stupid. I'm against a spending cap that will protect the stupid owners from themselves.

[Bird_Man]

I don't see a Northern NJ team having that big an impact on the Yanks, Mets.

NJ has 2 teams of its own (Devils, Nets) and they are the poor sisters to their NY counterparts (Rangers, Knicks) despite being much better run franchises.

Put the Devil Rays in the Meadowlands and no one will care. Few will drop their Yankees, Mets allegiances.