Why offense is down

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
They are losing ground with younger people. Paying attention to current revenue is short sighted. It's about participation. Participation is down. Way more competition. Its just like soccer being viable now as a US sport.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
As for America's past time, football took that over long ago.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
They are losing ground with younger people. Paying attention to current revenue is short sighted. It's about participation. Participation is down. Way more competition. Its just like soccer being viable now as a US sport.

I don't get your soccer assumption to viability.

Just because kids have many activities doesn't mean necessarily that the sport isn't thriving. Do you have any links to things for me to educate myself on your position?
 

ClydeLee

New member
Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
Posts:
14,829
Liked Posts:
4,113
Location:
The OP
Here is one of many articles and graph collections I've seen over time highlighting the demographic differences of sports. This was mainly last year only, I've seen others in the past that showed more than a single year.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-have-the-whitest-richest-oldest-fans/283626/

Now this includes Nascar and Golf which also compete with the oldest audiences for baseball. But the MLB is up there in the major 5 sports. And Soccer has a much younger, more Hispanic audience that is an increasing demographic.

Sent from my 20CDCTO1WW using Tapatalk
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
I know folks that say that, I still say it's baseball.
There is a reason people say that. As an example, last year, more people watched a crappy MNF game between the Vikings and Giants than Game 1 of the WS. 9.5 > 9.4. The football teams in question had 1 win to their credit at the time.
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
I don't get your soccer assumption to viability.

Just because kids have many activities doesn't mean necessarily that the sport isn't thriving. Do you have any links to things for me to educate myself on your position?

A 2014 Wall Street Journal study found that between 2008 and 2012, baseball participation by youths between the ages of 6 to 18 declined by 7.2-percent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alicia-jessop/youth-baseball-participation_b_5702009.html

And actually participation in all youth team sports is down.

From 2008-12, soccer participation dropped by 7.1 percent, baseball participation fell by 7.2 percent and basketball participation declined by 8.3 percent. Football showed the smallest decline, 5.4 percent, over the same span.
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/sto...ticipation-2013-usa-football-sfia-concussions

If they don't want to participate in sports, why would they spend a buttload of money to go see them when they are adults?
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
And actually participation in all youth team sports is down.



If they don't want to participate in sports, why would they spend a buttload of money to go see them when they are adults?

OK thanks!

For the record, I am not reading the links. I have no qualms with saying baseball and all of sports are being participated in by less kids.

I do object to the assumption "they don't play in them as kids why do they watch them as Adults" (paraphrased). Doing the quick thoughts of my circle I would say nearly 90+% of them never played the sports they follow and spend their dollars on.

Personally the only sport I really played as a kid was basketball and hockey and I hardly watch either now. I do watch a ton baseball, football, and golf.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,677
Liked Posts:
9,489
Its trends just like everything else. Football is king now. It will start to fall off and basketball or baseball will rise back up. Basketball just signed a huge new contract for TV that shows how much popularity basketball has right now. Its all about stars. You need someone to take the nation by storm. Baseball did that in the steroid era with homeruns. '98 baseball was king of all sports with the homerun chase. The steroid era saved a game that was in real bad shape.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Its trends just like everything else. Football is king now. It will start to fall off and basketball or baseball will rise back up. Basketball just signed a huge new contract for TV that shows how much popularity basketball has right now. Its all about stars. You need someone to take the nation by storm. Baseball did that in the steroid era with homeruns. '98 baseball was king of all sports with the homerun chase. The steroid era saved a game that was in real bad shape.


MLB_Attendance_1950-2013.png
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
Yep, the strike almost killed baseball which you can see in the area of 1994. The steroid era saved it.

The steroid era was around before the strike.

Cal Ripken had a big say in saving baseball.
WC had a say in it
IL had a say in it


And it appears attendance has been fine even in a down economy post steroid era.

Realistically I am not sure baseball was in all that much trouble.
 

SilenceS

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
Joined:
Apr 16, 2013
Posts:
21,677
Liked Posts:
9,489
The steroid era was around before the strike.

Cal Ripken had a big say in saving baseball.
WC had a say in it
IL had a say in it


And it appears attendance has been fine even in a down economy post steroid era.

Ralistically I am not sure baseball was in all that much trouble.

http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljournal/post/2010/03/14/the-business-of-steroids-in-baseball.aspx

Steroid Use and the Economic Impact on the League

Players are not the only group who stand to benefit from the use of steroids. “While franchise values fell during the early 90’s, they increased dramatically during the Steroids Era, with the average MLB franchise value rising from $140 million in 1994 to $332 million in 2004.” [15] In fact, steroids may have saved baseball after the 1994-1995 strike, which angered fans and resulted in attendance dropping by almost 10 million in both the National and American leagues. [16] .[16] It was not until Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa’s 1998 steroid fueled homerun race that the League began to recover. “Attendance in 1998 increased to almost 39 million in the National League, up seven million from the season before, and the fact is, the increase of almost seven million fans coincided with an increase of almost 400 home runs in the sport.” [17] Despite Major League Baseball’s current tough stance on steroids, individual franchises clearly had incentive to look the other way with regard to steroids in the mid-90’s.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
-1,272
Location:
Hell
http://www.law.illinois.edu/bljournal/post/2010/03/14/the-business-of-steroids-in-baseball.aspx

Steroid Use and the Economic Impact on the League

Players are not the only group who stand to benefit from the use of steroids. “While franchise values fell during the early 90’s, they increased dramatically during the Steroids Era, with the average MLB franchise value rising from $140 million in 1994 to $332 million in 2004.” [15] In fact, steroids may have saved baseball after the 1994-1995 strike, which angered fans and resulted in attendance dropping by almost 10 million in both the National and American leagues. [16] .[16] It was not until Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa’s 1998 steroid fueled homerun race that the League began to recover. “Attendance in 1998 increased to almost 39 million in the National League, up seven million from the season before, and the fact is, the increase of almost seven million fans coincided with an increase of almost 400 home runs in the sport.” [17] Despite Major League Baseball’s current tough stance on steroids, individual franchises clearly had incentive to look the other way with regard to steroids in the mid-90’s.
So it may have. That is agreed, it may. But like I said, the steroid era was larger than that. We are at that attendance level now.

Increases in value have been happening even now in double digit increases year over year.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9...-see-historic-23-percent-surge-average-values
 

Parade_Rain

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Aug 23, 2012
Posts:
9,995
Liked Posts:
3,630
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
How so?

Correct me if I am wrong but you only appreciate 1-0 by elite pitchers. That says something no?
When did you change your moniker back from JimJohnson?
 

Top