equally. This, of course, gives a boost to smaller market teams. The
last six Super Bowl winners have been Tampa, New England, Baltimore, St.
Louis, Denver (twice) and Green Bay. All relatively large markets.
Green Bay, Wisconsin is a large market?
Market size doesn't matter much in the NFL. There are only 8 home games
per team and the TV contract is negotiated league-wide. It's almost
salary cap independent.
At 12:40 AM 7/14/2003 -0400, you wrote:
equally. This, of course, gives a boost to smaller market teams. The
last six Super
The business model I floated a year or so ago (sadly on April Fool's
Day) gives visiting teams a % of local revenue, based on attendance.
(See http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lewis040102.asp)
That'd probably create a happy-medium between the two forces.
But more to your point, I'm
At 01:31 PM 7/10/2003 -0500, Fabio wrote:
... But a lot people inside sports
seem to resent big market teams (Yankees, LA Lakers) consistently
dominating the play-offs, although audiences seem to want dynasties from
big cities.
Is there an inherent problem here? Is it inevitable that there is a
Robin said:
The conflict you describe is that some people want more of a fair fight, and
others put more weight on wanting my team to win. Of course the second
group doesn't want to win via too easy or obvious an advantage. They may want
the rough appearance of fairness, but in fact want
In truth, the major pro sports (at least in the US and Canada)have very
different buisness models that to different degrees skew the system to
big and small market teams.
First and formost, every league has different revenue sharing agreements
between its membership. To my recollection, the