Is baseball really a joke nationally?

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

I must be stupid because I still don't really know what "national pastime" means.

 

More people watch football...but that doesn't make it better.

 

That may sound like a straight opinion...but let's just take a look at memorable sports moments, shall we?

 

The the Panthers and Patriots played in the SuperBowl was the same year that the Marlins played the Yankees in the World Series.

 

I use those 2 series because it was (IMO) the best football playoffs I can recall.

 

I remember how great that SuperBowl was...and all the great games leading up to it...

 

But not one thing from the playoffs (which...as already stated alot more people watched) was nearly as memorable a sports moment as Boone hitting that homerun against Boston...or Steve Bartman reaching for the baseball...or that Boston and Chicago were both 5 outs away from the Series when they imploded.

 

Almost every great sports moment is a baseball moment.

 

At least in my opinion...

 

When you tell your children about the sports you watched growing up...You'll tell them about Boone's HR, Bartman's Boner, the Sox finally winning and coming back down 0-3 to the almighty Yankees, every Perfect Game you've seen...

 

And also that the Patriots won a few SuperBowls in less memorable fashion.

 

Anyway...that's what "pastime" means to me.

[naiwf 0]

I must be stupid because I still don't really know what "national pastime" means.

 

More people watch football...but that doesn't make it better.

 

That may sound like a straight opinion...but let's just take a look at memorable sports moments, shall we?

 

The the Panthers and Patriots played in the SuperBowl was the same year that the Marlins played the Yankees in the World Series.

 

I use those 2 series because it was (IMO) the best football playoffs I can recall.

 

I remember how great that SuperBowl was...and all the great games leading up to it...

 

But not one thing from the playoffs (which...as already stated alot more people watched) was nearly as memorable a sports moment as Boone hitting that homerun against Boston...or Steve Bartman reaching for the baseball...or that Boston and Chicago were both 5 outs away from the Series when they imploded.

 

Almost every great sports moment is a baseball moment.

 

At least in my opinion...

 

When you tell your children about the sports you watched growing up...You'll tell them about Boone's HR, Bartman's Boner, the Sox finally winning and coming back down 0-3 to the almighty Yankees, every Perfect Game you've seen...

 

And also that the Patriots won a few SuperBowls in less memorable fashion.

 

Anyway...that's what "pastime" means to me.

 

Way to be completely unfair with the analysis there. Let's see, the ENTIRE NFL PLAYOFFS consists of 11 games, while there are as many as 41 in the MLB playoff system. If you took 11 random games from any year of baseball playoffs you could end up with a bunch of meaningless games as well. There was nothing great about the first 3 games of the Yankees' epic collapse. The rest of the games surrounding the Bartman ball didn't provide anything memorable. If you can see ONE TEAM potentially play 19 baseball games in one postseason, the odds are something memorable can happen since that's nearly two years worth of football postseasons.

[Slayer 0]

On top of that, I know that for the most part the SB can be an unmemorable wash, but to cite the Patriots' last three appearances as unmemorable is just inane

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Nascar can't possibly rate above baseball. There's a perception problem when using television ratings and average attendance figures. MLB runs over 90 games a week. Nascar holds one race a week. Of course Nascar is going to draw bigger ratings and crowds for that one race. It does not make it more popular. Same with football to a lesser extent. If an MLB team ran a 16 game schedule, would they draw bigger crowds? Absolutely.

 

That's the appeal with baseball. Most baseball teams run games every night for at least five months. No other sport has demonstrated it can maintain that kind of interest over an extended period of time.

 

As for regionality, let me use an example. Last year, the Pittsburgh Pirates drew the league's lowest attendance, about 1.8 million. Twenty years ago, they drew 735,900. That's a heck of a drop of interest, isn't it?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Baseball games are fun live, but I find them unbearable on tv.

 

In a bizarre twist, I feel the exact opposite way about football.

[Red Baron 0]

No, I agree with you AoO. Football is made for TV.

[naiwf 0]

Nascar can't possibly rate above baseball. There's a perception problem when using television ratings and average attendance figures. MLB runs over 90 games a week. Nascar holds one race a week. Of course Nascar is going to draw bigger ratings and crowds for that one race. It does not make it more popular. Same with football to a lesser extent. If an MLB team ran a 16 game schedule, would they draw bigger crowds? Absolutely.

 

That's the appeal with baseball. Most baseball teams run games every night for at least five months. No other sport has demonstrated it can maintain that kind of interest over an extended period of time.

 

As for regionality, let me use an example. Last year, the Pittsburgh Pirates drew the league's lowest attendance, about 1.8 million. Twenty years ago, they drew 735,900. That's a heck of a drop of interest, isn't it?

 

How many people lived in Pittsburgh 20 years ago relative to today? How big was the stadium they played in 20 years ago relative to today? Is the stadium more accessible now relative to 20 years ago? How much has attendance dropped in Colorado and Florida since their first seasons about a decade or so ago? We can play with stats all we like, but interest in baseball IS down whether people choose to admit it or not.

[Styles 0]

It's funny because I feel that way more about the NFL. Around here it's like Redskins 24/7 on all the local sports media. It could be the middle of August with the Orioles and Nationals in pennant races (a stretch, I know) and the lead story would be what Coach Gibbs ate for breakfast. DC area is definitely a football town.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

How many people lived in Pittsburgh 20 years ago relative to today? How big was the stadium they played in 20 years ago relative to today? Is the stadium more accessible now relative to 20 years ago? How much has attendance dropped in Colorado and Florida since their first seasons about a decade or so ago? We can play with stats all we like, but interest in baseball IS down whether people choose to admit it or not.

 

The point is that the lowest attendance in the NL is a full million more than it was 20 years ago. Interest in baseball was down after the strike, but it has rebounded. The minors set another attendance record last year. And revenues are through the roof. To say that interest is down despite all the evidence demonstrating it is not is just plain ignorance.

[naiwf 0]

What about Seattle (who led the majors in attendance in '01, and lost nearly one MILLION from that number in 4 years), Cleveland (down 1.2 MILLION from '01), Toronto, Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay and all of the other team's who have seen their attendances tank in the last few years? Do they not count? If Colorado loses a million and a half fans and Pittsburgh gains one million, is that not a net loss? Revenues go up with increased ticket prices. For example, the Knicks still bring in big revenues because the tickets cost more, but that doesn't necessarily mean more people care about the team because you can now buy season tickets and that wasn't the case as recently as 5 years ago.

[The Man in Blak 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a recent article that showed that the sales for Blue Jays tickets were up?

 

The only team that would concern me from naiwf's list would be Cleveland, but they've been in the middle of a youth movement - I'd be interested to see how their 2005 attendance compared to their 2004 and 2003 numbers.

 

Most of the teams that you've mentioned are some of the worst teams in the league. Tampa Bay and Colorado have been perennial losers in recent years, Seattle had a HUGE fall from grace and have seemed to crater out at the cellar of the AL West. Toronto is only now starting to make a climb back into contention.

 

Florida's the only exception, but the fanbase there (which is already in an oversaturated market) has been completely raped of all optimism by the business practices of the Marlins ownership. People didn't show up for the '03 World Series team because the last time they invested time and money in a Marlins World Championship team, the whole franchise might as well have been sold off for pennies on the dollar.

[naiwf 0]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a recent article that showed that the sales for Blue Jays tickets were up?

 

The only team that would concern me from naiwf's list would be Cleveland, but they've been in the middle of a youth movement - I'd be interested to see how their 2005 attendance compared to their 2004 and 2003 numbers.

 

Most of the teams that you've mentioned are some of the worst teams in the league. Tampa Bay and Colorado have been perennial losers in recent years, Seattle had a HUGE fall from grace and have seemed to crater out at the cellar of the AL West. Toronto is only now starting to make a climb back into contention.

 

Florida's the only exception, but the fanbase there (which is already in an oversaturated market) has been completely raped of all optimism by the business practices of the Marlins ownership. People didn't show up for the '03 World Series team because the last time they invested time and money in a Marlins World Championship team, the whole franchise might as well have been sold off for pennies on the dollar.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

 

All I'm saying is that if a baseball team is good, fans will watch. The minute they aren't, they don't (except for Cubs fans). 20 years ago, the Yankees were lucky to draw 2 million per, and NYC was a Mets town. If the Yankees ever fall on hard times or Steinbrenner's successor isn't willing to pony up $200+ million per year to field a team, even their attendance will go way down. In the NFL or NASCAR people will still watch regardless of whether their team/driver is doing well or not which makes baseball more of a niche market than a lot of baseball fans seem to think.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I'm reluctant to trust a lot of what information that ESPN has on their site, given that they rarely update the baseball statistics (I think Tony Graffanino is still the on the second base depth chart for the Royals), but I understand what you're saying.

 

Baseball has had issues with marketing itself, but it's slowly getting better. The World Baseball Classic, as ballyhooed as it may be, is a step towards furthering baseball's place in the international consciousness. Recent commercials, like the Pepsi one with Vladdy and A-Rod, have done a fair job of marketing the players themselves. The next step that baseball needs to take is to market the game itself. Football (and even NASCAR, to a certain extent) is its own culture - tailgating, coming to the game all painted up, and scantily clad cheerleaders are all indicative of the "experience" behind being at the game. Baseball hasn't lost that feel - I'd still maintain that there's nothing quite like experiencing a baseball game live and in person - but they haven't done a good job of selling that experience to fans on a national basis. Marketing seems to be focused on playing catchup, and trumpeting regional feuds (Boston-New York, for example) as some kind of national event when, in reality, they should be selling all of the stars of the game, from all areas around the country.

[razazteca 0]

NASCAR is for the south and rednecks

 

That's cute.

 

On the regular schedule, only 25% of races occur in what is considered the south and nearly 75% of the drivers are from...California, Washington, Missouri and Indiana.

 

What says redneck like California?

The big race, Daytona 500 is in the South! The rednecks have RVs and would follow the circuit as if they were Grateful Dead fans. Nothing says NASCAR like the Indy 500....

[nl5xsk1 0]

Almost every great sports moment is a baseball moment.

Only if you're a baseball fan. I personally couldn't tell you a single baseball moment that I'd consider "great". And I was at the ALCS game 4 between the Sox & Yankees a few years ago. Was it a memorable game/moment? Yeah. But would I call it a "great" moment? No, because I don't really care for baseball. Vinatieri's Snow Bowl field goal (and subsequent Super Bowl winner) were both greater in my eyes & mind.

 

EDIT: And I just remembered ... the homerun by Boone that people will allegedly tell their kids about ... I left the hotel room bar to go to my room and watch a regular season game between the Bruins & Stars on ESPN. Just because one person loves baseball doesn't mean we all do.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'm reluctant to trust a lot of what information that ESPN has on their site, given that they rarely update the baseball statistics (I think Tony Graffanino is still the on the second base depth chart for the Royals), but I understand what you're saying.

 

Baseball has had issues with marketing itself, but it's slowly getting better. The World Baseball Classic, as ballyhooed as it may be, is a step towards furthering baseball's place in the international consciousness. Recent commercials, like the Pepsi one with Vladdy and A-Rod, have done a fair job of marketing the players themselves. The next step that baseball needs to take is to market the game itself. Football (and even NASCAR, to a certain extent) is its own culture - tailgating, coming to the game all painted up, and scantily clad cheerleaders are all indicative of the "experience" behind being at the game. Baseball hasn't lost that feel - I'd still maintain that there's nothing quite like experiencing a baseball game live and in person - but they haven't done a good job of selling that experience to fans on a national basis. Marketing seems to be focused on playing catchup, and trumpeting regional feuds (Boston-New York, for example) as some kind of national event when, in reality, they should be selling all of the stars of the game, from all areas around the country.

 

Yes, the media has had a lot to do with the problems in baseball. No matter how much ESPN talks about the Colts & Patriots, it is nothing compared to the outright favourtism shown towards the Yankees and Red Sox by the media. FOX's MLB coverage is horrid. No other sport save hockey gets it nearly as bad. I find it rather shameful when Canada, a nation where baseball is the #4 sport at best and containing only one major league team gets significantly more balanced coverage of the sport than Americans do.

[Hawk 34 0]

NASCAR is for the south and rednecks

 

That's cute.

 

On the regular schedule, only 25% of races occur in what is considered the south and nearly 75% of the drivers are from...California, Washington, Missouri and Indiana.

 

What says redneck like California?

The big race, Daytona 500 is in the South! The rednecks have RVs and would follow the circuit as if they were Grateful Dead fans. Nothing says NASCAR like the Indy 500....

 

[The Man in Blak 0]

Almost every great sports moment is a baseball moment.

Only if you're a baseball fan. I personally couldn't tell you a single baseball moment that I'd consider "great". And I was at the ALCS game 4 between the Sox & Yankees a few years ago. Was it a memorable game/moment? Yeah. But would I call it a "great" moment? No, because I don't really care for baseball. Vinatieri's Snow Bowl field goal (and subsequent Super Bowl winner) were both greater in my eyes & mind.

 

EDIT: And I just remembered ... the homerun by Boone that people will allegedly tell their kids about ... I left the hotel room bar to go to my room and watch a regular season game between the Bruins & Stars on ESPN. Just because one person loves baseball doesn't mean we all do.

 

Can we just put this argument in a drawer somewhere and forget about it? Arguing that a sport is better because it has more "great moments" is an entirely subjective practice and, thus, a very flimsy premise to stand on.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What about Seattle (who led the majors in attendance in '01, and lost nearly one MILLION from that number in 4 years), Cleveland (down 1.2 MILLION from '01), Toronto, Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay and all of the other team's who have seen their attendances tank in the last few years? Do they not count? If Colorado loses a million and a half fans and Pittsburgh gains one million, is that not a net loss? Revenues go up with increased ticket prices. For example, the Knicks still bring in big revenues because the tickets cost more, but that doesn't necessarily mean more people care about the team because you can now buy season tickets and that wasn't the case as recently as 5 years ago.

We can put those teams into two categories. One, teams that recently saw new stadiums. Cleveland, Seattle, Toronto. All three saw attendance booms when those new stadiums mixed with franchise-best win/loss records. Second are the expansion clubs, Florida, Tampa Bay, Colorado. And to nip something here before I go on, Florida saw their best attendance last year since 1997, Toronto their best since 1999. Seattle's attendance dropped to ONLY 2.7 million, fourth in the league. Cleveland built such a high drawing club that it was impossible for their attendance to remain that high. They sold out practically every game in the late 90s thanks to a new park and the first period of good Indians baseball since the 1950s. The expansion clubs drew high numbers because expansion clubs are fresh products. Just look at the Oklahoma City Hornets for a similar example of these effects. Second, people forget that baseball experienced a surge in attendance just before the baseball strike. The Colorado Rockies drawing over 4 million inflated these numbers.

 

And for the record, baseball attendance is up 8,458 fans PER GAME from 20 years ago. That's a net increase.

[Red Baron 0]

You should put an asterisk beside Toronto, because when there is a lot of shitty teams that come play (basically everyone except Boston, New York, Anaheim and interleague) tickets go as cheap as two dollars.

[naiwf 0]

What about Seattle (who led the majors in attendance in '01, and lost nearly one MILLION from that number in 4 years), Cleveland (down 1.2 MILLION from '01), Toronto, Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay and all of the other team's who have seen their attendances tank in the last few years? Do they not count? If Colorado loses a million and a half fans and Pittsburgh gains one million, is that not a net loss? Revenues go up with increased ticket prices. For example, the Knicks still bring in big revenues because the tickets cost more, but that doesn't necessarily mean more people care about the team because you can now buy season tickets and that wasn't the case as recently as 5 years ago.

We can put those teams into two categories. One, teams that recently saw new stadiums. Cleveland, Seattle, Toronto. All three saw attendance booms when those new stadiums mixed with franchise-best win/loss records. Second are the expansion clubs, Florida, Tampa Bay, Colorado. And to nip something here before I go on, Florida saw their best attendance last year since 1997, Toronto their best since 1999. Seattle's attendance dropped to ONLY 2.7 million, fourth in the league. Cleveland built such a high drawing club that it was impossible for their attendance to remain that high. They sold out practically every game in the late 90s thanks to a new park and the first period of good Indians baseball since the 1950s. The expansion clubs drew high numbers because expansion clubs are fresh products. Just look at the Oklahoma City Hornets for a similar example of these effects. Second, people forget that baseball experienced a surge in attendance just before the baseball strike. The Colorado Rockies drawing over 4 million inflated these numbers.

 

And for the record, baseball attendance is up 8,458 fans PER GAME from 20 years ago. That's a net increase.

 

How much of that +8,458/game comes from the 5 biggest markets though? The argument is that baseball is a regional game and nothing you've said has proven that statement to be false. The top 10 teams draw as many fans as the bottom 20. 6 of the top 8 teams attendance wise come from 2 states (Cali & NY). Those 6 teams alone accounted for 20 of the 69 million fans (29%) that went to ballgames. Add in Oakland and that number swells to 32% of all attendance coming from 2 states. Since '86 the Yankees are drawing almost 2 million MORE per year which is about 25,000 more per game just from one team. A handful of markets are solely responsible for baseball's popularity. Outside of those markets most fans are relatively apathetic. How is baseball not a regional game?

[Red Baron 0]

I'm reluctant to trust a lot of what information that ESPN has on their site, given that they rarely update the baseball statistics (I think Tony Graffanino is still the on the second base depth chart for the Royals), but I understand what you're saying.

 

Baseball has had issues with marketing itself, but it's slowly getting better. The World Baseball Classic, as ballyhooed as it may be, is a step towards furthering baseball's place in the international consciousness. Recent commercials, like the Pepsi one with Vladdy and A-Rod, have done a fair job of marketing the players themselves. The next step that baseball needs to take is to market the game itself. Football (and even NASCAR, to a certain extent) is its own culture - tailgating, coming to the game all painted up, and scantily clad cheerleaders are all indicative of the "experience" behind being at the game. Baseball hasn't lost that feel - I'd still maintain that there's nothing quite like experiencing a baseball game live and in person - but they haven't done a good job of selling that experience to fans on a national basis. Marketing seems to be focused on playing catchup, and trumpeting regional feuds (Boston-New York, for example) as some kind of national event when, in reality, they should be selling all of the stars of the game, from all areas around the country.

 

Yes, the media has had a lot to do with the problems in baseball. No matter how much ESPN talks about the Colts & Patriots, it is nothing compared to the outright favourtism shown towards the Yankees and Red Sox by the media. FOX's MLB coverage is horrid. No other sport save hockey gets it nearly as bad. I find it rather shameful when Canada, a nation where baseball is the #4 sport at best and containing only one major league team gets significantly more balanced coverage of the sport than Americans do.

 

Thats quite pushing it because Canadians are interested in NASCAR, Golf, Curling, CFL, F1 than Baseball.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Thats quite pushing it because Canadians are interested in NASCAR, Golf, Curling, CFL, F1 than Baseball.

 

That's why I said at best. The three I was thinking of were hockey, football & curling, BTW. But you're right about golf, so move baseball down to at least #5. I'm not so sure about autoracing, but perhaps. I'd say soccer if the national team wasn't so lousy.

[The Man in Blak 0]

What about Seattle (who led the majors in attendance in '01, and lost nearly one MILLION from that number in 4 years), Cleveland (down 1.2 MILLION from '01), Toronto, Colorado, Florida, Tampa Bay and all of the other team's who have seen their attendances tank in the last few years? Do they not count? If Colorado loses a million and a half fans and Pittsburgh gains one million, is that not a net loss? Revenues go up with increased ticket prices. For example, the Knicks still bring in big revenues because the tickets cost more, but that doesn't necessarily mean more people care about the team because you can now buy season tickets and that wasn't the case as recently as 5 years ago.

We can put those teams into two categories. One, teams that recently saw new stadiums. Cleveland, Seattle, Toronto. All three saw attendance booms when those new stadiums mixed with franchise-best win/loss records. Second are the expansion clubs, Florida, Tampa Bay, Colorado. And to nip something here before I go on, Florida saw their best attendance last year since 1997, Toronto their best since 1999. Seattle's attendance dropped to ONLY 2.7 million, fourth in the league. Cleveland built such a high drawing club that it was impossible for their attendance to remain that high. They sold out practically every game in the late 90s thanks to a new park and the first period of good Indians baseball since the 1950s. The expansion clubs drew high numbers because expansion clubs are fresh products. Just look at the Oklahoma City Hornets for a similar example of these effects. Second, people forget that baseball experienced a surge in attendance just before the baseball strike. The Colorado Rockies drawing over 4 million inflated these numbers.

 

And for the record, baseball attendance is up 8,458 fans PER GAME from 20 years ago. That's a net increase.

 

How much of that +8,458/game comes from the 5 biggest markets though? The argument is that baseball is a regional game and nothing you've said has proven that statement to be false. The top 10 teams draw as many fans as the bottom 20. 6 of the top 8 teams attendance wise come from 2 states (Cali & NY). Those 6 teams alone accounted for 20 of the 69 million fans (29%) that went to ballgames. Add in Oakland and that number swells to 32% of all attendance coming from 2 states. Since '86 the Yankees are drawing almost 2 million MORE per year which is about 25,000 more per game just from one team. A handful of markets are solely responsible for baseball's popularity. Outside of those markets most fans are relatively apathetic. How is baseball not a regional game?

 

Let's pin down by what we mean for a "regional game." Football seems to be the popular contrast in this argument - how do its attendance figures compare to baseball's performance? Do the lower-tier teams in the NFL draw numbers that are more comparable to the upper-tier teams? I suspect that you're going to see a similar divide as you've illustrated in baseball, but I think that it's worth double checking the numbers.

 

Also, one thing to consider about the attendance figures for baseball - the market size and climate may be a stronger indicator for those attendance numbers than the vitality of baseball in that region itself. For instance, Kansas City is never going to out draw New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, just because the amount of potential customers and disposable income is lower. I suspect that some (not all) of those lower markets will be lesser markets in every sports.

[Art Sandusky 0]

The sport itself isn't a joke, but people are increasingly viewing the professionals as overpaid jokes. That's the general sentiment I get from people, but I also live in the heart of hard-tackling/tire-screeching country, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[naiwf 0]

Let's pin down by what we mean for a "regional game." Football seems to be the popular contrast in this argument - how do its attendance figures compare to baseball's performance? Do the lower-tier teams in the NFL draw numbers that are more comparable to the upper-tier teams? I suspect that you're going to see a similar divide as you've illustrated in baseball, but I think that it's worth double checking the numbers.

 

Also, one thing to consider about the attendance figures for baseball - the market size and climate may be a stronger indicator for those attendance numbers than the vitality of baseball in that region itself. For instance, Kansas City is never going to out draw New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, just because the amount of potential customers and disposable income is lower. I suspect that some (not all) of those lower markets will be lesser markets in every sports.

 

I'll put it to you like this, I've lived in NYC my whole life. The mid '80s were the greatest years for me to be a fan as the Mets and Giants were amongst the best teams and brought home world championships. Over those 20 years the Jets have never won anything, and the Mets have sucked by and large for the last 15 years. The Giants have had highs and lows and the Yankees went on a tear from about '96 to now after being the drizzling shits the decade before. In those 20 years the Giants and Jets have maintained similar attendance levels throughout. I will die before I can get a Giants season ticket plan because there are that many people on the list ahead of me. The Yankees drew between 1.5 and 2 million people from '86 to '96. From '96 to '06 their numbers rose by nearly twice as many. The Mets went in the opposite direction.

 

Baseball is like wrestling in that it's either very hot or very cold in specific areas. If baseball had a salary cap and the Yankees were winning 75 to 85 games a year there's not a chance in hell they'd have 4 million people go through the turnstiles. If the Giants go 4-12 for a decade, they'd still sell out every game. Baseball is carried right now by NY, the 5 Cali teams, Boston, St. Louis and Chicago. With the exception of Cards and Cubs fans, the rest would flee by a million per year or more if their teams had years upon years where they weren't in contention. In football, no one gave a rat's ass about the Patriots until recently, but even when they became the newest dynasty ratings and attendance everywhere else stayed the same. LA doesn't even have a pro team, the Giants and Jets are never good at the same time and yet the NFL is still the king because it's a national juggernaut, labor strife notwithstanding.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Is this what it's like in the political threads? Two sides that have very different opinions, that will never even agree to disagree, butting heads and throwing out facts/opinions/stats even if the other side doesn't care to see them?

 

Because this is what I think goes on in the political debates, and it's the reason that I avoid them.

[Red Baron 0]

I think Al can't admit that Baseball is not that popular as it once was.

[The Man in Blak 0]

All right, since we're using ESPN for the MLB, let's be fair and take the ESPN attendance figures for the NFL as well (apologies in advance if this doesn't format out well):

 

 1     Washington         8     716,999     89,624     111.9
2     NY Giants         8     628,519     78,564     99.8
3     Kansas City     8     623,325     77,915     98.1
4     NY Jets         8     619,958     77,494     98.4     
5     Denver         8     608,790     76,098     100.0 
6     Carolina         8     587,700     73,462     100.3 
7     Cleveland         8     578,330     72,291     100.4 
8     Miami         8     575,256     71,907     95.6     
9     Buffalo         8     575,248     71,906     89.9     
10     Atlanta         8     565,106     70,638     99.2     
11     Baltimore         8     563,076     70,384     102.1 
12     Green Bay         8     562,419     70,302     115.6 
13     Houston         8     562,397     70,299     101.2 
14     Tennessee         8     553,192     69,149     103.2 
15     New England     8     550,048     68,756     101.1     
16     Philadelphia     8     541,393     67,674     102.5     
17     Seattle         8     532,954     66,619     99.4     
18     San Diego         8     529,916     66,239     92.9     
19     Cincinnati         8     526,469     65,808     100.4 
20     Jacksonville     8     525,519     65,689     89.0
21     St. Louis         8     523,685     65,460     100.2     
22     San Francisco     8     523,426     65,428     93.2     
23     Tampa Bay         8     521,741     65,217     99.3     
24     Minnesota         8     511,960     63,995     99.9     
25     Pittsburgh         8     507,434     63,429     97.6     
26     Dallas         8     505,258     63,157     95.9     
27     Chicago         8     496,965     62,120     92.8     
28     Detroit         8     492,580     61,572     94.7     
29     Indianapolis     8     457,373     57,171     94.9
30     Oakland         8     418,450     52,306     83.0     
31     New Orleans     8     417,270     52,158     65.4
32     Arizona         7     297,568     42,509     57.8

 

Even though there is clearly a divide between the more popular teams and the sadsacks like Arizona, the divide is not quite as great as it is in the MLB. I believe part of that comes from more effective national marketing from the NFL, and part of that comes from the fact that there's only eight home games to accrue such a divide. The difference in MLB is wider, but there are almost ten times as many home games in the schedule to build the gap.

 

Is this what it's like in the politica l threads? Two sides that have very different opinions, that will never even agree to disagree, butting heads and throwing out facts/opinions/stats even if the other side doesn't care to see them?

 

Not take this too far off the track...but are you serious? This thread is all of two pages. You make it sound like we're deadlocked in some interminable slugfest, when we've just barely got all the facts on the table.

[Vern Gagne 0]

The NFL is American's Passion

 

MLB is still America's Pastime

 

 

 

I'm curious. When was baseball at it's true peak of popularity?