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
> 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?
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 sta
> Why do relatively similar endeavors have such different business models?
Perhaps it is social learning. Baseball was founded in the 19th century
with few rules, while the modern NFL was a product of the 1960's. So
people may have had more experience with the sports business, which was
used in d
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 NFL
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 w
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
con
