Support NeoGAF

[Squirrel Killer]

Then the Iowa Cubs have to grow and adapt if they'd want to stick around. This is the MLB we're talking about. Nobody in the league sustains a level of play that would be "entertaining to watch" over the entire course of their ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY TWO game season.

How? Seriously, when metro areas twice as large as large as Des Moines are ridiculed as "small markets," how the fuck is podunk* Des Moines, Iowa supposed to support an MLB team? You say "grow and adapt" like a GOPer's "bootstraps."

 

[JustenP88]

How? Seriously, when metro areas twice as large as large as Des Moines are ridiculed as "small markets," how the fuck is podunk* Des Moines, Iowa supposed to support an MLB team? You say "grow and adapt" like a GOPer's "bootstraps."

Well, they wouldn't have to. There are plenty of minor league teams in cities larger than Des Moines who may decide making a push to be in the big league would be a worthwhile investment.

It would regulate itself over time. The organizations who spend enough will be in the MLB or hovering around the top of AAA while the smallest of the markets will be perpetually relegated to the lower levels. However, for the smaller markets, their fan bases would now have the small sliver of hope that their team may go on a FGCU/George Mason-type Cinderella run to the MLB. A far greater prize than being crowned "Texas League Champions" or something.

Also, I assume you're familiar with Green Bay, Wisconsin? That's an exception, of course but still, by your standards, that's a podunk shithole.

 

[FelixOrion]

Also, I assume you're familiar with Green Bay, Wisconsin? That's an exception, of course but still, by your standards, that's a podunk shithole.

The Green Bay Packers are 1) a remnant of the NFL's past and one of the oldest teams in the league, surviving in a small market partially due to tradition, and 2) supported (as a market), by proxy, by the entire state of Wisconsin (5.7mil vs. Iowa's 3.1mil), but mainly the markets of Milwaukee and Madison, one of which has an NBA and MLB team, and the other is the state capital of just about 250k, both of which are bigger than Des Moines, which is the biggest city in Iowa (207k).

 

[DUFFMCWALIN]

Because American sports are, like most things, 100% about the money.

Fixed that for ya scrub. Don't make this an American bashing thread.

 

[Kill3r7]

American Leagues like to pretend even their shittiest teams are made up of elite players. Basically they like to keep the entire league 'over' instead of letting teams move up/down skill levels.

Except they are. The worst pro team in the NFL, NBA or MLB is better than the best minor league or college team. It's fun to debate what ifs but you would be hard pressed to say the Knicks or Sixers aren't better than any college bball team.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

There's an issue with top teams spending a large percentage in european leagues but that's not necessarily a symptom of the system itself.

I like the idea of pro/rel but would add a salary cap that all leagues aside from the MLB have.

MLS teams partcipate in the Concacaf Champions League and the US teams participate in the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup.

The US Open Cup final last September was one of the most fun experiences I've ever had at a sporting event. It needs to gain far more attraction in this country than it currently has.

Also is the oldest current sports tournament in the US I believe.

 

[BradC00]

I'm not an expert in either sport, but it seems that some of the hits allowed in American Football would be illegal in Rugby?

pretty sure you have to wrap up around the waist in rugby, or some crap.

anyways, the real answer is college sports. do universities in euroland even have sports? why pay to groom talented 8 year olds when you could just have high schools and colleges do it for you?

 

[JustenP88]

I agree with you that relegation brings some excitement to the table. However, under the current sports business structure in the US it is not feasible. Most franchises would fail if they were relegated. The cost of running a team is so astronomical that the lack of guaranteed TV money and ad revenue would bankrupt these teams. The Jaguars are struggling to survive as an NFL team let alone if they were relegated.

Furthermore, one only needs to look at college sports (especially football) to get an idea of what it costs to compete. The majority of D1 football programs lose money each year.

I agree that it's not feasible under the current structure. I also think the structure should change. Stuff like this shouldn't be happening:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanr...ton-astros-are-second-worst-team-of-all-time/

"Houston Astros owner Jim Crane just pulled off one of the most improbable seasons in sports history.

Off the field, his team was the most profitable in the history of Major League Baseball. On the field, it was the second-worst in the history of Major League Baseball. Yes, by barely an eyelash, the 2013 Astros just missed the distinction of all-time best-worst in the same season."

Fuck that noise. Putting out the worst product shouldn't net you the most profit. I think the fear of relegation could provide ample incentive to not be so damn awful. Of course they'd need to reduce operating costs across the board. I'd start by shortening the season. Traditionalists and record books be damned.

Also, the NFL is a whole different animal. There's no way this relegation business would catch on in the MLB but there's an infinitely smaller chance of it happening in the NFL, even in the wettest of my dreams.

 

[firehawk12]

pretty sure you have to wrap up around the waist in rugby, or some crap.

anyways, the real answer is college sports. do universities in euroland even have sports? why pay to groom talented 8 year olds when you could just have high schools and colleges do it for you?

You control them at 8 and don't have to worry about drafts?

 

[JustenP88]

The Green Bay Packers are 1) a remnant of the NFL's past and one of the oldest teams in the league, surviving in a small market partially due to tradition, and 2) supported (as a market), by proxy, by the entire state of Wisconsin (5.7mil vs. Iowa's 3.1mil), but mainly the markets of Milwaukee and Madison, one of which has an NBA and MLB team, and the other is the state capital of just about 250k, both of which are bigger than Des Moines, which is the biggest city in Iowa (207k).

1) K

2) The population of the Des Moines Metro area is ~600,000. That's more than large enough to support what would be, in this insane hypothetical scenario, the only major league team of any sport in the entire state.

 

[Stereogatari]

pretty sure you have to wrap up around the waist in rugby, or some crap.

anyways, the real answer is college sports. do universities in euroland even have sports? why pay to groom talented 8 year olds when you could just have high schools and colleges do it for you?

There are university sports, but the vast majority have barely any fanfare and those that do are nothing compared to America. The average crowds the top American Football colleges get are fucking insane and higher than the professional football (soccer) teams here.

That's the one thing that would have been cool to have in the UK. A proper high school/university sports culture like in America, with build up to big games and big crowds and such.

 

[FelixOrion]

1) K

2) The population of the Des Moines Metro area is ~600,000. That's more than large enough to support what would be, in this insane hypothetical scenario, the only major league team of any sport in the entire state.

The Milwaukee metro is over two million, and, while that doesn't include the city of Green Bay, Milwaukee acts as Green Bay's de facto major metro area/market. I wasn't trying to necessarily disprove that Des Moines couldn't support a major sports team, but I was trying to show that comparing a hypothetical Des Moines MLB team to the Green Bay Packers isn't quite an apt comparison.

 

[Arials]

pretty sure you have to wrap up around the waist in rugby, or some crap.

I read an interesting comment piece from someone who had played a bit of both Rugby and American Football. Essentially in Rugby good tackling technique (and wrapping your hands round someone's waist/thighs is good tackling technique) is important because you don't have armour and if you just throw your body around as hard as you can you'll end up seriously injuring yourself. American Football solved their injury problem differently; sod the technique, put on some armour and throw yourself around like a cannon ball. Both methods reduced the risk of broken bones, but one method increase the risk of brain injury a fair bit more than the other..

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Well, they wouldn't have to. There are plenty of minor league teams in cities larger than Des Moines who may decide making a push to be in the big league would be a worthwhile investment.

"Ok guys, I want you to go out and do your best... unless of course your best puts us in the top three, then I need you to throw the game so we don't financially ruin ourselves."

It would regulate itself over time. The organizations who spend enough will be in the MLB or hovering around the top of AAA while the smallest of the markets will be perpetually relegated to the lower levels. However, for the smaller markets, their fan bases would now have the small sliver of hope that their team may go on a FGCU/George Mason-type Cinderella run to the MLB. A far greater prize than being crowned "Texas League Champions" or something.

They would also have a sliver of a hope of losing their rivalries, losing their favorite players when the team adjust for their higher or lower league, playing in ridiculously over/undersized facilities, and spinning their team in to financial straits. For what? To watch another set of bodies filling the same shirts getting their asses kicked by the Yankees? No thanks.

Or how about another option. Say maybe... as a player develops in to a better player, we move just him/her to a league that plays at a level more appropriate to his/her development? Pro/reg isn't just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, it the worst solution for the good of a sport as a whole and the good of the individual players. Want to stay with your team that you just helped get promoted? Get ready to ride the pine. Like your team and coaches despite getting relegated? Hope you don't mind the pay cut. If it wasn't for the tradition behind it in many leagues, I'd advocate that it be abolished.

Also, I assume you're familiar with Green Bay, Wisconsin? That's an exception, of course but still, by your standards, that's a podunk shithole.

Shithole? That's your word bud, not mine. Also Green Bay is an exception that proves the rule by being highly supported by Milwaukee, a top 35 market.

The population of the Des Moines Metro area is ~600,000. That's more than large enough to support what would be, in this insane hypothetical scenario, the only major league team of any sport in the entire state.

Most minor league baseball teams play in smaller markets than Des Moines. The Iowa Cubs are probably one of the better positioned teams to make such a move. The Cedar Rapids Kernals are not, bootstraps or not. Even then, 600k is still 100k smaller than the next biggest Big Four market besides Green Bay (Winnipeg with the NHL Jets, a team that hasn't been the most stable BTW.) The next biggest, Oklahoma City with >900k.

 

[JustenP88]

The Milwaukee metro is over two million, and, while that doesn't include the city of Green Bay, Milwaukee acts as Green Bay's de facto major metro area/market. I wasn't trying to necessarily disprove that Des Moines couldn't support a major sports team, but I was trying to show that comparing a hypothetical Des Moines MLB team to the Green Bay Packers isn't quite an apt comparison.

Fair enough! My point in that comparison was kinda that, although Green Bay is tiny, people flock there to see the Packers and, if they're coming from Milwaukee, I assume that's a 1-2 hour trip one-way. I think Des Moines could round up their fair share of baseball fans in a similar area.

Although, home games in the NFL are quite rare so each one is an event. All the more reason to trim down the MLB schedule, in my opinion.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I agree that it's not feasible under the current structure. I also think the structure should change. Stuff like this shouldn't be happening:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanr...ton-astros-are-second-worst-team-of-all-time/

"Houston Astros owner Jim Crane just pulled off one of the most improbable seasons in sports history.

Off the field, his team was the most profitable in the history of Major League Baseball. On the field, it was the second-worst in the history of Major League Baseball. Yes, by barely an eyelash, the 2013 Astros just missed the distinction of all-time best-worst in the same season."

Fuck that noise. Putting out the worst product shouldn't net you the most profit. I think the fear of relegation could provide ample incentive to not be so damn awful. Of course they'd need to reduce operating costs across the board. I'd start by shortening the season. Traditionalists and record books be damned.

Also, the NFL is a whole different animal. There's no way this relegation business would catch on in the MLB but there's an infinitely smaller chance of it happening in the NFL, even in the wettest of my dreams.

Er, that was a bunch of financial bullshit.

Most of that "profit" was getting paid out by CSN Houston, which the Astros owned a third of. And, from the bankruptcy filings of CSN Houston when it was getting sued by the Astros and Rockets, they never paid the Astros a dime.

 

[JustenP88]

"Ok guys, I want you to go out and do your best... unless of course your best puts us in the top three, then I need you to throw the game so we don't financially ruin ourselves."

In this hypothetical scenario, I'm assuming some sort of revenue sharing would be put in place for the teams that are promoted which would greatly ease the financial burden. Something similar to what happens when teams are brought up to the EPL. And, of course, the teams with these sorts of financial concerns probably wouldn't be spending the money on talent that they'd need to be a consistent contender for promotion. And, if they were promoted, they'd probably only last for one marvelous, profitable year while they enjoy the big TV contracts, full stadiums and a beat-down that sends them back where they came from. Look at the Astros. Embarrassingly low payroll (which translates into a terrible product), infuriatingly (for a consumer) high profits.

They would also have a sliver of a hope of losing their rivalries, losing their favorite players when the team adjust for their higher or lower league, playing in ridiculously over/undersized facilities, and spinning their team in to financial straits. For what? To watch another set of bodies filling the same shirts getting their asses kicked by the Yankees? No thanks.

You're talking about rivalries and favorite players in minor league baseball? That's a joke, right? Minor league teams are a revolving door with players being plucked up to the majors, demoted/promoted (can't have that!) at any time by their major league affiliates. And I'm sure fans would rather continue watching their local team play the Pawtucket Red Sox than have to sit through a game against the lame-ass Boston Red Sox.

Also, under a system like this, maybe career minor leaguers could actually have the freedom to negotiate reasonable salaries...

Pro/reg isn't just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, it the worst solution for the good of a sport as a whole and the good of the individual players. Want to stay with your team that you just helped get promoted? Get ready to ride the pine. Like your team and coaches despite getting relegated? Hope you don't mind the pay cut. If it wasn't for the tradition behind it in many leagues, I'd advocate that it be abolished.

Who said anything about pay cuts after relegation? Why would that be a thing unless it was agreed upon in the contract? Breaking the minor league teams off from the majors would allow for more freedom with regards to contract negotiations, or at least it seems that way to me. And players will ride the pine on a team they're not good enough to start for either way. They'd always be able to sign with a team in a lower league when their contract is up. I imagine there would be a lot of teams looking to lure fringe-MLB talent to AAA with a decent paycheck and guaranteed playing time.

If it wasn't for the tradition of underpaid minor league players and universities funding talent development for major sports leagues, I'd advocate for them to be aboli... Oh, wait. I'm already doing that.

Shithole? That's your word bud, not mine. Also Green Bay is an exception that proves the rule and is highly supported by Milwaukee, a top 35 market.

Felt like I needed to add a little extra oomph with the 'shithole' given that Green Bay is half the size of 'podunk' (your word; and it's a perjorative. Definitely not a term of endearment.) Des Moines. Milwaukee is roughly a two-hour trek one-way to Green Bay. I'm sure they'd be able to find enough people in the Des Moines metro area to support the only major league sports team in Iowa. Especially given that, in all likelihood, their existence as a major league team would be a limited-time deal.

 

[JustenP88]

Er, that was a bunch of financial bullshit.

Most of that "profit" was getting paid out by CSN Houston, which the Astros owned a third of. And, from the bankruptcy filings of CSN Houston when it was getting sued by the Astros and Rockets, they never paid the Astros a dime.

Good info. I'm not aware of all that mess. However, that Forbes article is from 2013. Here's one from 2014 which doesn't have the Asstros at first, but they do come in at second: http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/27/the-most-valuable-and-most-profitable-teams-in-baseball-are-namedguessed-at/

Not sure if that falls under the same umbrella, or not.

EDIT: Here's a direct link to the Forbes article. Lots of 'small-market' or low-payroll teams near the top of operating income: http://www.forbes.com/mlb-valuations/list/#page:1_sort:6_direction:desc_search:

 

[The Lone Courier]

Thankfully there isn't or San Diego would never have a professional team.

 

[ATF487]

I'm not sure which system is better, to be honest.

The American one is good because most of the teams in the league have a realistic chance of being competitive within a couple of years. You can be a good trade or a draft pick away from massively improving your chances to win a championship. I am also in favor of a wage cap, for the most part. However, there are some drawbacks. If you live in a smaller city that doesn't have a team now, you will probably never get one, and there's no chance your minor league team can make the jump. There are teams like the Philadelphia 76ers that are shit, on purpose, so they can get a high draft pick. The regular season (or the league) is devalued a bit because it's only real purpose is to decide seeding for the later knockout tournament. I also really don't understand the appeal of the college sport system for many reasons (players can't be paid, ideologically I think schools shouldn't have these massive athletic programs, athletes on campus get away with murder, there's not a nice neat conference/league structure, colleges don't represent people like city teams do, etc)

I like the promotion/relegation system for soccer a lot. There's usually a reason for every team to want to do well. The best teams want to win the league or come close enough to get into Europe, the worst teams want to stay in the league, and the middle teams would love a cup run. Plus, the idea of upward sporting mobility is romantic. But, it rarely works out that way, at least if you're measuring your success on reaching the highest level. In every top league, there's usually only a couple of teams that can actually win it, and a newly promoted team has very little chance of consolidating itself there. It's not like the days when Nottingham Forest won the second division and then won the first division a year later. Usually, at least 1 or 2 of the newly promoted teams ends up back in the championship (or second division) the next year. I think the amount of money and infrastructure that the larger teams have will make that sort of thing impossible. Even in a relatively competitive league like the Premier league, I think there aren't that many teams that can actually challenge for a cup or a champions league spot either. Some teams like Newcastle are just happy existing too. Not bad enough to go down, but not good enough to win anything.

Both systems could borrow a little from each other, I think.

 

[Chezzymann]

Its just a different approach to sports, in the United states pro sports are viewed as an extension on the ladder of professionalism after college sports (High school -> College -> Pro)

I like the American system more because you dont have a handful of teams dominating, there's a shitload of competition come playoff time thanks to the drafts and trades allowing a lot of teams to be competitive. One team may be horrible one year and then a championship contender the next. Just look at the western conference in the NBA, theres 8 fantastic teams competing for playoff spots and its just one conference. One loss can send you down 5 spots in the rankings. Only problem with that is its very hard for a team to stay good for long though.

The idea of minor league teams needing to have major league-sized stadiums is obviously financially pretty much impossible in major American sports such as baseball. See, we think that all of the teams in each league should all theoretically actually have a chance, instead of having some super-good teams and then some that are effectively AAA teams in the "major league" but with no chance to actually win before they get dumped down to the next tier again... that's a quite unfair system. The American system of a pro team with attached minor league teams is a better one.

And the playoffs don't take a whole year like the Champion's League, either! The longest playoffs (basketball and hockey) take a few months, but nothing more than that. Instead of the European system of uneven national leagues below with the Champion's League for winners, in most US the better teams with somewhat similarly-sized stadiums are in one league, then smaller teams with less money are in smaller stadiums, and are usually attached to a pro team. You don't need national leagues with lots of bad teams in them and then a tournament of the better teams only, because only teams which actually can compete are in the top league to begin with.

The major exception to this is football, which just has the pros and college, no minors. I'm not sure why, I don't follow football. Maybe because of the popularity of college football? But on that note, college sports are quite popular in the US, unlike Europe, and obviously that's not something that could be attached to the relegation system. (The largest stadiums in the US aren't pro football stadiums, they are college football stadiums. It's a HUGE thing, particularly in the South and Midwest.) College and minor-league teams are how pro teams get their players.

I've read that the American system of pro sports is actually more "socialist" than the European one, in that things such as revenue sharing, salary caps, and no relegation ensure that all teams have a chance to win, either in the short or long term. In Europe, a few superteams completely dominate, and others really have no chance to challenge them; much less equal.


Multipurpose stadiums are bad because they aren't ideal for any sport. Hockey + basketball in one arena does work, but baseball + football in one does not, it was tried in the '70s and '80s and was abandoned for a reason. It's particularly bad for the baseball side of things, though it hurts football too I believe. Even soccer wants their own stadiums now, to not have to share with football (grass turf issues, etc.)

Also, cities don't make money off of stadiums; those are always big money-losing projects, every time.


No, football and basketball grew out of colleges, but baseball did grow from clubs. The first professional baseball clubs were established in the US in the 1860s, just a couple of years after the first pro soccer teams in England earlier that decade. That baseball didn't grow out of colleges is probably one of the reasons for baseball's massive minor league system -- for those who don't know, each of the 30 MLB teams has five or, usually, six minor league teams that they own below them, in six levels (rookie, short-season A (short season single-A), A (single-A), Advanced A (Advanced Single-A), AA (Double-A), and AAA (Triple-A). Some players start in college, but many go straight from high school to the minors; baseball is a hard sport to learn, and getting good enough to get to the pros takes time. Back in the 1800s and early 1900s there was more shifting back and forth between "major" and "minor" league status, but by the early 20th century things solidified into a version of the current system of major and minor leagues, because only some leagues could afford to keep up top-level play, and the concept of relegation has never existed in the US.

But yes, for basketball and football the college influence is important.

Also this.

 

[Azuran]

The success of Swansea, Southampton, and to an extent West Ham completely contradict those ideas.

That's considered success in Europe? In my eyes, those are all middle of the table mediocre teams that will never win anything big to the great dismay of their fans. It doesn't sound that much fun when you know you'll be stuck competing for 8th place every season.

 

[MikeRahl]

You probably could change things up in the NBA at least.

Best system is probably 3 leagues of 20. Would probably only need a metro area of 600k to support a team and some markets can easily handle 2.

Pick a season and play the season normally. Teams that make the playoffs make it into the first flight league. Rest of the league (14 teams) plays a tournament while the final Larry O'Brien is being awarded, top 4 teams make it into the top league.

Each team plays the others 3 times each, that gives you 57 games. The current season is 82 games + playoffs so that gives you lots of wiggle room for tournaments within the leagues or with the Euroleagues.

If you want to keep the college model, make it so high schoolers can only join the third division, underclassmen the second and upper classmen/graduates the big leagues or something but I imagine college sports would fall off in this scenario.

Force financial fair play for all movement and abolish the draft. There are about 120 less jobs in the NBA so talent there will be more condensed, but some of the fringe players (8th-10th off the bench) might want to play in the lesser divisions rather than ride the bench in the top flight so there should still be a good mix of talent.

Stadium disparity shouldn't be too big of an issue as the NBA isn't a gate driven league, most of the money comes from the television rights. As long as you have around 12k seats you should be viable financially.

Hockey works with this model as well, but obviously isn't as popular in the states which has vastly more markets to work with. It is also more gate-driven so you might run into issues with Tulsa playing against the Toronto's of the world.

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

The infrastructure just doesn't exist. There either aren't lower leagues at all, or they exist only as farm teams for the major league teams to have their players improve at.

To use baseball for an example, there's a major league club, and then they usually have five farm teams that are stocked with their players. None of these teams have their own players, so the idea of them moving up just couldn't exist. The Toledo Mud Hens being promoted to the majors would be an impossible proposition because they don't actually have any players; they just stock out their team with players who aren't yet good enough to play for the Detroit Tigers.

So the only way this would work is if there were a bunch of smaller, separate leagues who had their own players. But there isn't the culture or tradition for that, not to mention that these teams would need to have major league ready stadiums if they wanted to have a chance of competing in the big leagues (most minor league stadiums are fairly limited in their capacity). And no one would care about them. There's not a tradition around the idea of multiple leagues or supporting some podunk team because they're the local favorites.

The system in place of the major American sports leagues can't function with a promotion/relegation system.

 

[Dusk Soldier]

Relegation could work if they based it off the division structure that's already in place. Most leagues have around 30 teams so they could do something like a gold division (holding the top10 teams), a silver division( holding the 10 middle teams) and a bronze division(holding the weakest teams)

If the NBA/NHL adopted that structure, they could make it so something like the top 8 gold division teams, and top 4 silver division teams are garunteed a playoff spot. This would incentivise lower ranking teams to do well, because if they can get into the gold division it would mean a vitual lock to be in the playoffs( and the extra revenue that goes with it.), as well as slighty more home games vs. elite teams (which are a bigger draw for the fans)