- Admin
- #1,551
Im a fan of a major market team who spends money, but we had 20 crappy years too. If you were to take out the last 2 years the Dodgers only won 1 playoff game in 20 years prior to that, but they were always top 5 in payroll. I believe teams like the As, Reds, Twins, Marlins, Rockies, Padres,D Backs and so on all had more wins then us in between. Like I said if it became a pattern I could see changing it, but baseball hasnt had a back to back championship since 1999-2000. The Patriots have been in half of the last 8 Superbowls.
That is because baseball is much more of a regional sport than other sports. Because of the number of games, the broadcasts are carried on local or regional stations rather than national outlets. It's much easier to tie revenue directly to a team in MLB because TV revenue is tied directly to a team. In contrast, NFL football is carried on the major networks, both in and out of market.
I don't have a problem with no revenue sharing. Let the Yankees' owners get rich off their team. But the sport needs a salary cap (not just a "tax" for exceeding ceilings) in order to keep the sport alive. You need real competition. Plus, a salary cap would keep players with a single team longer because they couldn't just be lured away to a new team every two years with more money. That would build both team unity and viewer familiarity.
I grew up with the Texas Rangers. They were my team. I moved away and three years later, none of the same players were on the team. Guess who I root for now?
You are right 100% Harry. However football while it may seem national because of Fox and CBS, is still regional. Local channels still cover the games, it is just for a national affiliate.