Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
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?
Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
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 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?
Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
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 starting to believe that the idea of a big market team in sports is something of a fiction. Instead, big market is synonymous with historically and currently good team who doesn't go into debt. The last part creates some honestly _small_ market teams -- see anything team a dairy state -- but note how few true big-market teams there are, and what sets them apart: 1) The Lakers are clearly a big market team. The Clippers, who share a home-court with them, aren't. 2) The Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) were a regularly competitive team before the salary cap. The 76ers (NBA) and Phillies (MLB) were both considered failing, small market teams until recently. 3) The Nets play in the same complex as the Giants and Jets (NFL). 4) The Portland Trailblazers are considered a regular contender in the NBA. Portland is so small it has no football or baseball team, although it may have the latter in the future. 5) The Dolphins are a football institution. The Heat have been mostly competitive throughout their history. The Florida Marlins are the prototypical poor team. 6) No one would have a problem with a White Sox/Cubs world series, even though they're both clearly large market teams. 7) Detroit made the NBA finals three years in a row, pre-cap and pre- Jordan era (1988-1990), winning two. The Lions (NFL) and Tigers (MLB) are perhaps two of the worst teams in recent sports history. (The Pistons of the NBA, on the other hand, have been doing well over the last few years). The idea that large markets exist seem more to be a function of the team than the city itself. So, if you have a dynasty, it'll draw eyeballs, _even if it's in the bumbles._ The best example is the Detroit run in the NBA. In their third year, they played Portland, with, if I recall correctly, better ratings than they had the two years before (versus the Lakers). But more importantly, remember that these finals were projected (after game 2) to have the worst ratings since 1982. (As it turned out, they had the worst ratings since they've been recorded.) Who played in the '82 Finals? The Lakers beat the Sixers, 4-2. Note that the two teams had faced each other in 1980 with the same result (although LA had a different coach) and would face each other _again_ in 1983. In '83, the Sixers won 4-0, and the ratings were better. The best explanation is that fan base has a significant lag time to it, especially as you get to smaller markets. Combine that with the fact that the one team that had been to the finals the year before (NJ) was a huge underdog and didn't put up much of a fight, and this series was doomed to lose to Joe Millionaire. So, the problem isn't that we want to give small market teams a chance. The problem is that leagues dislike dynasties, but dynasties are good for them. Dan Lewis At 01:31 PM 7/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: Playoffs between small market teams get low ratings, like the New Jersey Nets/San Antonio Spurs championship game. 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 conflict between people inside sports who want to see some diversity among the winners? Is big league team sports inherently biased towards the dynasty model? Are there viable business models for team sports that could produce a wider range of winners? Fabio
Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
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 conflict between people inside sports who want to see some diversity among the winners? Is big league team sports inherently biased towards the dynasty model? Are there viable business models for team sports that could produce a wider range of winners? 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 enough unfairness for them to win. Does a similar phenomena occur in other areas of life? Do university alumni want an appearance of fair evaluation of applicants, but really want their kids to have an advantage? Do businesses want an appearance that local media are fair and impartial, but really want to be able to buy them off to prefer their side of the story? Are there other examples? Can we model this behavior as resulting from rational agents, or is some irrationality required to make such a story work? Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
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 enough unfairness for them to win. Can we model this behavior as resulting from rational agents, or is some irrationality required to make such a story work? It doesn't seem to require any irrationality. Say insisting on an unfair game brings you benefits but has the cost that people may complain. It seems natural to assume that the costs created by complaint will increase as the unfairness of the game increases. If the complaint-unfairness curve crosses the unfairness-advantage curve, then people will be more more fair. Dictators, for example, have pushed the complain-unfairness curve down by ruthlessly hurting dissidents. In democratic societies, the costs imposed by complaints can be high enough to force people back to the crossing point of the curve. Now that you put it this way, I'd say it's a nice econ 101 problem. Fabio
RE: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA
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 teams put a relatively large amount of revenue into a common pot and then divide it 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. Couple this with rigid standards on player salaries (in the form of a collective bargaining agreement with the players union that defines a maximum amount each team can spend on players), and small market and big market teams are on a relatively even playing field. At the other end of the spectrum, Major League Baseball teams share relatively little revenue and have (until last year... And the rules are still pretty loose) no real curbs on how much a team can spend on players). Teams from Southern California or New York have appeared in and won 5 of the last six World Series. Why do relatively similar endeavors have such different business models? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of fabio guillermo rojas Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Competition vs. Profits in the NBA Playoffs between small market teams get low ratings, like the New Jersey Nets/San Antonio Spurs championship game. 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 conflict between people inside sports who want to see some diversity among the winners? Is big league team sports inherently biased towards the dynasty model? Are there viable business models for team sports that could produce a wider range of winners? Fabio
