NFL

VirtualSmitty · 03-14-2011, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Not exactly, that means many people have an opportunity to watch. When you have 81 home games and can't even draw 5000 a night (not even going to mention TV viewership, or lack thereof), that speaks volumes.

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games. Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger

Starscream · 03-14-2011, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games. Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger

Well said.

chippewastud79 · 03-14-2011, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games. Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger

Bad teams fill their stadiums (Cubs) all the time. But the same is even more true for the NFL. Even the Browns and Raiders find a way to put butts in seats on a regular basis.

The average salaries are staggering and its amazing that the sport that has the largest roster size, largest risk for injury, such a large viewership and fanbase and shortest careers has such a small payroll comparative to the NBA and MLB.

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams

*cough*Marlins*cough*

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

You can't compare viewer ship or attendance between baseball and football. The way in which their season and playoffs are structured is to different. And plenty of people are watching baseball, buying merchandise, and going to games.

There's no direct comparison, but looking for some sort of breakdown I came across this doozy. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that people aren't watching baseball or going to games. I'm saying that there's a market there for a lot more people to watch baseball, attend games and buy merchandise, but because of the economics of baseball in its current format, restricts that untapped market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Look how much more baseball players make than footballs on average, pretty impressive numbers. Even the baseball minimum salary is much larger

That's because football rosters are twice the size of football rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...

chippewastud79 · 03-14-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

That's because football rosters are twice the size of football rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...

You'd be surprised, after the top 10 guys the money falls off pretty fast. Elite players compared to elite players and its not even close. Even situational relievers and pinch hitters make significantly more than players who play significant rolls on NFL rosters.

VirtualSmitty · 03-14-2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

*cough*Marlins*cough*

There's no direct comparison, but looking for some sort of breakdown I came across this doozy. I'm not saying, nor have I ever said that people aren't watching baseball or going to games. I'm saying that there's a market there for a lot more people to watch baseball, attend games and buy merchandise, but because of the economics of baseball in its current format, restricts that untapped market.

That's because football rosters are twice the size of football rosters. I'd counter that the top 25 paid players on each NFL squad would be a higher average than the average salary of an MLB player, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion so I'll leave well enough alone...

The Marlins have a good team. In fact they usually are competitive, in a difficult division, so whats your point? It's the best example of team with no fan base thats good.

And your roster argument doesn't stack up. As said above, elite MLB players make much more than their NFL counterparts. Plus, unlike the NFL, there are three tiers of minor leagues players usually go through to get to the big show. A,AA, and AAA all have a full roster of players and coaches, and while they don't make the major league minimum they do earn a decent salary. When you factor in that cost, the operating overhead in terms of payroll is much higher than any NFL team, which just pulls talent straight from college. Plus these days most teams own and operate camps in other countries to scout talent. So the fact that baseball players are so much better compensated is indeed quite impressive when you think about it

Also, the WS ratings only go to show there is comparing television ratings between baseball and football. The superbowl might as well be a holiday, everybody watches regardless of who they root for. Baseball is much more regional, I watch the superbowl for the commercials, but I only caught two games of WS because I didn't care much about either team. If the Yankees and Cubs played in a WS they would blow the superbowl ratings out of the water.

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

The Marlins have a good team. In fact they usually are competitive, in a difficult division, so whats your point?

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Which isn't a problem for most teams. What's funny is that the teams that are drawing bad crowds have good teams

And I responded:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

*cough*Marlins*cough*

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

And your roster argument doesn't stack up. As said above, elite MLB players make much more than their NFL counterparts.

When did I say otherwise? I simply wondered aloud (or more specifically at the end of a post rhetorically) how the average MLB salary would stack up against the top 25 players of an NFL squad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Plus, unlike the NFL, there are three tiers of minor leagues players usually go through to get to the big show. A,AA, and AAA all have a full roster of players and coaches, and while they don't make the major league minimum they do earn a decent salary. When you factor in that cost, the operating overhead in terms of payroll is much higher than any NFL team, which just pulls talent straight from college. Plus these days most teams own and operate camps in other countries to scout talent.

Completely irrelevant to a MLB players average salary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

So the fact that baseball players are so much better compensated is indeed quite impressive when you think about it

Not really. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

VirtualSmitty · 03-14-2011, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

You said:

And I responded:

When did I say otherwise? I simply wondered aloud (or more specifically at the end of a post rhetorically) how the average MLB salary would stack up against the top 25 players of an NFL squad.

Completely irrelevant to a MLB players average salary.

Not really. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

I thought you were implying the Marlins were bad. And the minor leagues are relevant as they are part of the MLB. If your not impressed by how well compensated baseball players are based on all the additional overhead MLB teams face that NFLs don't , that's your opinion. But the fact remains that baseball is very profitable, compensates it's players better than the NFL and is thriving despite all the setbacks of the last 20 years.

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 12:23 PM

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here, and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

chippewastud79 · 03-14-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here, and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

Try your theory with the Yankees vs. Packers.

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chippewastud79

Try your theory with the Yankees vs. Packers.

Well since the top four paid players in all of baseball play for the Yankees, me thinks that would skew the bell curve some.

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here, and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.

Forgot to include the link for the Saints salary; sorry.

chippewastud79 · 03-14-2011, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Forgot to include the link for the Saints salary; sorry.

Your link for the Saints includes their signing bonuses, which are sometimes prorated and included as roster bonuses that can be lost if a player is cut. It also includes 61 players instead of the roster of 53. For the full 61 players, assuming they made their base salary, which at least 8 of them didn't, the average is ~1.152 Million. Top 25 players average salary ~$2.012 million. If you add the signing bonuses, roster bonuses and incentives that may or may not have been reached assuming a player stays healthy, and doesn't get cut, yes, the salaries appear to be close. But look a little deeper and it is less than a third of the money on average for salary vs. salary.

Edit: Also of note, the third 'best' player on the Saints makes about the average of any MLB player. Drew Brees is arguably one of the top 5 QB's in the game, the face of a franchise, and perhaps the league and makes about $1 million more than the average MLB baseball player.

yourchoice · 03-14-2011, 12:21 PM

I'm enjoying the discussion. Very interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

If the Yankees and Cubs played in a WS they would blow the superbowl ratings out of the water.

No way. Aside from the Superbowl, I'd guess at least a half dozen other football games (be it regular season, or playoffs - if not more) would beat any World Series game....but definitely the Superbowl.

As for the topic...for a long time I believed that a capitalist structure was better...you should be paid as much someone else thinks your skills are worth.

But...for sports leagues to thrive as a whole, I think some sort of structure is needed. For the NHL to survive, they needed to take drastic measures, and they did. I think the NBA will have to do something similar (I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't play a game next year). The one thing all leagues with a cap have is both a ceiling and a floor. That's what makes a parity driven cap work. Could baseball be improved with a cap like that? Honestly, I think so...and I'm a Phillies fan!

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yourchoice

I'm enjoying the discussion. Very interesting.

No way. Aside from the Superbowl, I'd guess at least a half dozen other football games (be it regular season, or playoffs - if not more) would beat any World Series game....but definitely the Superbowl.

The clinching game of the World Series this past season barely beat out a Monday Night Football regular season game. Even if a Cubs/Yankees series were to go six games, I doubt their combined viewership would equal that of the Super Bowl.

Stephen · 03-14-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

If the Yankees and Cubs played in a WS they would blow the superbowl ratings out of the water.

Pfft. This is by far the most ridiculous post in this thread...

03-14-2011, 12:23 PM	#9
Stephen Sultan of Cigars Join Date: Jan 2011 First Name: Stephen Location: Where the Pony Express began and Jesse James ended. Posts: 1,582 Trading: (18)	Re: NFL Just for kicks, I looked up the average starting salary for a MLB player here, and picked a random team (New Orleans Saints; found here) and added up the salaries of the top 25 players. Came to $99.59007 million (only added it up once, could be incorrect). Divided that by 25, and got $3.98 million. I'm positive it's different for different teams, just wanted to throw that out there.