Two of the teams I mentioned have long histories in the NFL

Fine, maybe the Jets aren't the best of teams, but the Giants have been good for a while. Who do you think New York loves more? The Giants and the Jets or the Yankees and the Mets? (Yes, I made it rhyme on purpose)

 

What about Chicago? The Bears are a long storied team. But I would bet if there wasn't the pure hatred amongst the two Chicago teams, if there was a choice of which two teams to keep alive in the city in any sport it would be White Sox and Cubs.

 

What about Seattle? Baltimore? Cincy? Cleveland?

 

It might seem on the surface that football has the edge, but I believe this is just American society's lack of an attention span (which actually doesn't make too much sense, because if you look at it closely, it takes about the same amount of time between plays in baseball and football with the exception of the two minute drill) and the barbarous nature of the public. However, cities are far more passionate about thier baseball teams in most cases than thier football teams. Miami I believe is the exception, not the rule, and this has alot to do with lack of history.

463712[/snapback]

 

New York is so unique you can't bring it into the debate. There is literally a niche for anything and everything there. The Yankees are #1 because it's really easy to like a winner , plus it's almost effortless for anyone in the five borroughs to get to Yankee stadium. The Mets have a strong support base in Long Island, and again, they're exceptionally easy to get to. The Jets and the Giants are in New Jersey, so accessability is an issue there.

 

Personally, I think in NY it's Yankees first, and who ever is winning recently second. This past year, the Knicks made quite the run to become the #2 team.

 

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about Chicago, but the SI poll about popularity of teams, enthusiasm, etc. for Illinois had the Cubs #1 and the Bears #2, and I'm pretty sure the Sox finished last, or narrowly ahead of the Blackhawks. Now, as far as I'm concerned, White Sox fans are better "pure fans" than Cubs fans simply because the loveable loser bandwagon has gotten out of control. Either way, any of the big six teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Giants) clearly dominate their market, but the NFL really dominates everywhere else.

 

Scheduling has a lot to do with it...it's easier to become religiously fanatical about a team where you only have a commitment once a week.

Cleveland I would think is football too.

San Francisco might not be clearly dominated by the Giants, I think 49'rs are up there..

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about Chicago, but the SI poll about popularity of teams, enthusiasm, etc. for Illinois had the Cubs #1 and the Bears #2, and I'm pretty sure the Sox finished last, or narrowly ahead of the Blackhawks. Now, as far as I'm concerned, White Sox fans are better "pure fans" than Cubs fans simply because the loveable loser bandwagon has gotten out of control. Either way, any of the big six teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Giants) clearly dominate their market, but the NFL really dominates everywhere else.

463914[/snapback]

But on the same scale, think about who those Big 6 are trumping. The Yanks take out the Giants and the Jets, two of the bigger franchises in the NFL. The Red Sox trump the Patriots, we all know what they are doing. Cubs take out the Bears, a historic franchise, Cards deal a blow to St. Louis, who have appeared in two of the last 5 Super Bowls, the Dodgers used to beat up on the Raiders and Rams when they were there, and the Giants take out another storied franchise in the 49ers.

 

I think that if we see another playoffs this season like we saw last season in baseball (actually, all we really would need is Red Sox-Yankees to go 7), and the same garbage 7-9 teams making the playoffs in the NFL, having playoffs with invented storylines and more often than not a dull game, then you will see baseball surpass football in popularity. It's already happening. And so help me, if the Cubs or the Red Sox make the World Series, a Game 7 then would probably beat out the Super Bowl in most watched program of the year.

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about Chicago, but the SI poll about popularity of teams, enthusiasm, etc. for Illinois had the Cubs #1 and the Bears #2, and I'm pretty sure the Sox finished last, or narrowly ahead of the Blackhawks.? Now, as far as I'm concerned, White Sox fans are better "pure fans" than Cubs fans simply because the loveable loser bandwagon has gotten out of control.? Either way, any of the big six teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Giants) clearly dominate their market, but the NFL really dominates everywhere else.

463914[/snapback]

But on the same scale, think about who those Big 6 are trumping. The Yanks take out the Giants and the Jets, two of the bigger franchises in the NFL. The Red Sox trump the Patriots, we all know what they are doing. Cubs take out the Bears, a historic franchise, Cards deal a blow to St. Louis, who have appeared in two of the last 5 Super Bowls, the Dodgers used to beat up on the Raiders and Rams when they were there, and the Giants take out another storied franchise in the 49ers.

 

I think that if we see another playoffs this season like we saw last season in baseball (actually, all we really would need is Red Sox-Yankees to go 7), and the same garbage 7-9 teams making the playoffs in the NFL, having playoffs with invented storylines and more often than not a dull game, then you will see baseball surpass football in popularity. It's already happening. And so help me, if the Cubs or the Red Sox make the World Series, a Game 7 then would probably beat out the Super Bowl in most watched program of the year.

464481[/snapback]

 

But look at what you're saying. Popularity for the playoffs come from the two biggest teams, the Yanks and Red Sox, like they need popularity. The last thing either of those teams need is more exposure. What would really help baseball become more popular is if neither of those teams made the playoffs because of an epic surge from a team like the D-Rays or Baltimore. What sucks about the Yanks and Red Sox is that they are in the same division meaning both of them not making the playoffs is just about impossible when you consider how much they spend.

 

I mean, what you're saying is that we need the rich to get richer while they keep the MLB popular, but average teams in NFL markets become continually more neglected. The Twins, the Rockies, the Marlins, the Pirates, well, you get the idea, they're the teams that need dramatics in the playoffs(and in the case of most of them, prolonged periods of greatness, not one year wonders). Look at us, we were involved in an amazingly good series in each round, and we're barely the second most popular team, most likely the #3 team in our market. .

 

I know you'll deny it, but the NFL's continued parity allows more teams to make the playoffs, and it keeps a lot of team's fans interested, while the MLB's perceived parity really means that a bunch of teams are average because of two or three "super-teams," gobbling up all of their players, not to mention that all of it is dictated by economics. That's the biggest problem, honestly. Fans become attached to teams, but they also become attached to players; teams are only as popular as their most recognizable player, and that's true in any sport. The difference between the MLB and the NFL, NBA, and to a lesser extent, the NHL, is that just about any really good player on the middle 15 teams is destined to end up on the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, or the new money team, the Angels. In the NBA and NHL, decisions are made by salary cap economics, not "can we afford them" economics. Any team in the NBA could have taken Shaq, while if the same scenario were to happen in baseball, he would have ended up with the big money coast teams.

I would actually argue the converse, that the continued extreme parity is ruining the NFL's product. The playoffs are becoming a washed down event, just formalities as the one super team destroys everyone else.

 

What you need is a balance. The balance that was achieved in last year's playoffs. You had traditional powers (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves). You had the underdogs (Marlins, Twins). You had the New School's Powers (Giants, A's). And you had the lovable losers (Cubs). You had two long cursed teams have a chance at greatness, only for the curses to be punctuated in another perfect sense. You had thrills and chills in every series, with only one series being lackluster (Twins-Yanks first round). You had amazing series comebacks (Marlins and Red Sox both winning 3 straight elimination games to advance) and great in game comebacks (NLCS Game 6, ALCS Game 7, just to name two).

 

There isn't really parity in the perfect sense of the word in the NFL. Everyone except the Patriots is just mediocre. Everyone sucks. The parity you want is where everyone is good, but the NFL doesn't have that. It's spun like that, sure. But the good parity you see is when there are dominant teams, and there are underdogs. When series go 6 and 7 games. The underdog doesn't have to win, but as long as he puts up a memorable fight you have a winner. The NFL doesn't have the luxury of back and forth fights in a series, because of the one and done nature of their playoffs.

 

Basically, the parity in the NFL has created 20 or so mediocre teams that fight each other to finish between 7-9 and 9-7 most of the time. The teams aren't very good, and the games in turn become boring. There is a dominant defense, there is a dominant offense, they just happen to be on the same team. In baseball, the dominant pitching staffs and the dominant offenses have different names stiched across their chests. This leads to great, great battles. Sure, the Super Bowl last year was good, but what about the rest of the playoffs? The World Series was a down as far as drama goes for last year's playoffs, and it was still a pretty memorable clash.

Two of the teams I mentioned have long histories in the NFL

Fine, maybe the Jets aren't the best of teams, but the Giants have been good for a while. Who do you think New York loves more? The Giants and the Jets or the Yankees and the Mets? (Yes, I made it rhyme on purpose)

 

What about Chicago? The Bears are a long storied team. But I would bet if there wasn't the pure hatred amongst the two Chicago teams, if there was a choice of which two teams to keep alive in the city in any sport it would be White Sox and Cubs.

 

What about Seattle? Baltimore? Cincy? Cleveland?

 

It might seem on the surface that football has the edge, but I believe this is just American society's lack of an attention span (which actually doesn't make too much sense, because if you look at it closely, it takes about the same amount of time between plays in baseball and football with the exception of the two minute drill) and the barbarous nature of the public. However, cities are far more passionate about thier baseball teams in most cases than thier football teams. Miami I believe is the exception, not the rule, and this has alot to do with lack of history.

463712[/snapback]

 

New York is so unique you can't bring it into the debate. There is literally a niche for anything and everything there. The Yankees are #1 because it's really easy to like a winner , plus it's almost effortless for anyone in the five borroughs to get to Yankee stadium. The Mets have a strong support base in Long Island, and again, they're exceptionally easy to get to. The Jets and the Giants are in New Jersey, so accessability is an issue there.

 

Personally, I think in NY it's Yankees first, and who ever is winning recently second. This past year, the Knicks made quite the run to become the #2 team.

 

I don't pretend to know a whole lot about Chicago, but the SI poll about popularity of teams, enthusiasm, etc. for Illinois had the Cubs #1 and the Bears #2, and I'm pretty sure the Sox finished last, or narrowly ahead of the Blackhawks. Now, as far as I'm concerned, White Sox fans are better "pure fans" than Cubs fans simply because the loveable loser bandwagon has gotten out of control. Either way, any of the big six teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Giants) clearly dominate their market, but the NFL really dominates everywhere else.

 

Scheduling has a lot to do with it...it's easier to become religiously fanatical about a team where you only have a commitment once a week.

463914[/snapback]

 

Got a link?I highly doubt Cubs are more pouplar than DA BEARS.

I would actually argue the converse, that the continued extreme parity is ruining the NFL's product. The playoffs are becoming a washed down event, just formalities as the one super team destroys everyone else.

 

What you need is a balance. The balance that was achieved in last year's playoffs. You had traditional powers (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves). You had the underdogs (Marlins, Twins). You had the New School's Powers (Giants, A's). And you had the lovable losers (Cubs). You had two long cursed teams have a chance at greatness, only for the curses to be punctuated in another perfect sense. You had thrills and chills in every series, with only one series being lackluster (Twins-Yanks first round). You had amazing series comebacks (Marlins and Red Sox both winning 3 straight elimination games to advance) and great in game comebacks (NLCS Game 6, ALCS Game 7, just to name two).

 

There isn't really parity in the perfect sense of the word in the NFL. Everyone except the Patriots is just mediocre. Everyone sucks. The parity you want is where everyone is good, but the NFL doesn't have that. It's spun like that, sure. But the good parity you see is when there are dominant teams, and there are underdogs. When series go 6 and 7 games. The underdog doesn't have to win, but as long as he puts up a memorable fight you have a winner. The NFL doesn't have the luxury of back and forth fights in a series, because of the one and done nature of their playoffs.

 

Basically, the parity in the NFL has created 20 or so mediocre teams that fight each other to finish between 7-9 and 9-7 most of the time. The teams aren't very good, and the games in turn become boring. There is a dominant defense, there is a dominant offense, they just happen to be on the same team. In baseball, the dominant pitching staffs and the dominant offenses have different names stiched across their chests. This leads to great, great battles. Sure, the Super Bowl last year was good, but what about the rest of the playoffs? The World Series was a down as far as drama goes for last year's playoffs, and it was still a pretty memorable clash.

464564[/snapback]

 

I disagree comepletely with your argument.Your trying to diminish the NFL while making a lame attempt to bolster MLB.

No, look at the records of the past few years. Watch the games. The teams SUCK. End of story. There is one good team and the rest are garbage, the games in turn become boring because of this.

 

And if you want a link to the Cubs being more popular than "DA BEARS" read it in SI.

I would actually argue the converse, that the continued extreme parity is ruining the NFL's product. The playoffs are becoming a washed down event, just formalities as the one super team destroys everyone else.

 

What you need is a balance. The balance that was achieved in last year's playoffs. You had traditional powers (Yankees, Red Sox, Braves). You had the underdogs (Marlins, Twins). You had the New School's Powers (Giants, A's). And you had the lovable losers (Cubs). You had two long cursed teams have a chance at greatness, only for the curses to be punctuated in another perfect sense. You had thrills and chills in every series, with only one series being lackluster (Twins-Yanks first round). You had amazing series comebacks (Marlins and Red Sox both winning 3 straight elimination games to advance) and great in game comebacks (NLCS Game 6, ALCS Game 7, just to name two).

 

There isn't really parity in the perfect sense of the word in the NFL. Everyone except the Patriots is just mediocre. Everyone sucks. The parity you want is where everyone is good, but the NFL doesn't have that. It's spun like that, sure. But the good parity you see is when there are dominant teams, and there are underdogs. When series go 6 and 7 games. The underdog doesn't have to win, but as long as he puts up a memorable fight you have a winner. The NFL doesn't have the luxury of back and forth fights in a series, because of the one and done nature of their playoffs.

 

Basically, the parity in the NFL has created 20 or so mediocre teams that fight each other to finish between 7-9 and 9-7 most of the time. The teams aren't very good, and the games in turn become boring. There is a dominant defense, there is a dominant offense, they just happen to be on the same team. In baseball, the dominant pitching staffs and the dominant offenses have different names stiched across their chests. This leads to great, great battles. Sure, the Super Bowl last year was good, but what about the rest of the playoffs? The World Series was a down as far as drama goes for last year's playoffs, and it was still a pretty memorable clash.

464564[/snapback]

 

You're preaching to the choir, I'm a much bigger fan of baseball than football, hell, I like watching Hockey more than the NFL, but here's the thing.

 

The teams don't suck, they're even, and that makes for much more exciting games because in a game of inches when everyone is pretty evenly matched with few exceptions, you have drama on a lot of plays. Baseball is very exciting to watch, but when it gets to crunch time, good teams start to play seriously and average teams just can't play catch up. Despite what a lot of people think, individuals make a lot of difference in baseball, it's just an issue of them wanting to play. Disagree all you want, but Pudge was 100% the reason we beat the Giants because he finally had something to play for.

 

Either way, the NFL and the NBA are exponentially better leagues than the MLB. Do I prefer MLB over both of them? Of course, but if you were to put Tagliabue or Stern in charge of baseball, the balance would be the best thing to ever happen to the sport. This is the first time in years that the Marlins went into any season with expectations, but in a balanced (or if you prefer 'sucky') league, there are moderate expectations every year. No one can consistently expect great things in baseball except for Yankee fans. The Yankees are good for baseball only when they lose, with the system in place essentially to only deter their spending (which is failing miserably) there will be 29 other teams plus one. Go ahead and say that this is the way it's always been, but next year, when they add Beltran and probably two more young premier pitchers (Sheets?) and their payroll approaches $250 million baseball will be on the verge of a melt-down, in popularity, in competitive edge, in fan morale, and fan support.

 

Now talk about a super team.

I agree with you that one person makes a difference on a baseball field. Just look at starting pitchers, they can win games by themselves. Baseball is the perfect sport because at times it's a collection of inviduals, but at times it's a team game. It can vary.

 

The thing about the Yankees is, well, it's not only happening in baseball. I see the AL like I see the Western Conference in the NBA. You have one team that seems to get all the superstars (Lakers, Yankees). You have one team trying their best to spend and catch up (Dallas, Boston). You have a bitter rivalry that always unfolds in the playoffs (Lakers-Spurs, Red Sox-Yankees). You have teams jumbled up together where anyone can beat anyone (Lakers-Spurs-Mavs-Kings, Yanks-Red Sox-A's-Angels). And you have the thinking the World Title for sure will come out of there.

 

What happens? The NL and the East strike back. Marlins and Pistons both beat the Mighty Empires this past season. In baseball it was more of a triumph of the system than in basketball, because the Pistons aren't exactly the poorest of NBA franchises, but one can argue that the Yankees helped pay the Marlins to beat them due to the luxury tax. Do I think the tax works? No. But it's a start anyways.

 

Baseball's team alignment is really perfect compared to the other sports. The other major sports really would love to have the kind of team set up baseball does. They have a dominant team, they have the 3 or 4 best rivalries in any sport, they have 6 of the most historic teams in all of sports, where fans live and die and they make a bajillion dollars because of it. They have the most recognizable logos and the best playoff system (in the sense that not many teams get in, there is never a really really bad team in the playoffs sneaking in thanks to the system). Baseball was only jumped because of the 94 strike, and granted they avoid anymore bumps in the road (well, and get a new commish, but that can wait) it'll retake it's spot at king of the country's attention.

I agree with you that one person makes a difference on a baseball field. Just look at starting pitchers, they can win games by themselves. Baseball is the perfect sport because at times it's a collection of inviduals, but at times it's a team game. It can vary.

 

The thing about the Yankees is, well, it's not only happening in baseball. I see the AL like I see the Western Conference in the NBA. You have one team that seems to get all the superstars (Lakers, Yankees). You have one team trying their best to spend and catch up (Dallas, Boston). You have a bitter rivalry that always unfolds in the playoffs (Lakers-Spurs, Red Sox-Yankees). You have teams jumbled up together where anyone can beat anyone (Lakers-Spurs-Mavs-Kings, Yanks-Red Sox-A's-Angels). And you have the thinking the World Title for sure will come out of there.

 

What happens? The NL and the East strike back. Marlins and Pistons both beat the Mighty Empires this past season. In baseball it was more of a triumph of the system than in basketball, because the Pistons aren't exactly the poorest of NBA franchises, but one can argue that the Yankees helped pay the Marlins to beat them due to the luxury tax. Do I think the tax works? No. But it's a start anyways.

 

Baseball's team alignment is really perfect compared to the other sports. The other major sports really would love to have the kind of team set up baseball does. They have a dominant team, they have the 3 or 4 best rivalries in any sport, they have 6 of the most historic teams in all of sports, where fans live and die and they make a bajillion dollars because of it. They have the most recognizable logos and the best playoff system (in the sense that not many teams get in, there is never a really really bad team in the playoffs sneaking in thanks to the system). Baseball was only jumped because of the 94 strike, and granted they avoid anymore bumps in the road (well, and get a new commish, but that can wait) it'll retake it's spot at king of the country's attention.

464848[/snapback]

 

You make a good poing because the whole "the East is back" thing makes for a sexy storyline for the NBA, but even while the East got Shaq and has probably the two best teams in the NBA in the Pistons and Pacers, the West still has the two best players in Duncan and KG, and they also added the best scorer in McGrady. So while the East may have won it all last year, this coming year is heavily stacked against them simply because KG can't be guarded, nor can I think of a more dominant two-some than Yao and McGrady. But while we can classify the NBA dominance as "the western conference" we really can't classify anything in baseball like that except the Yankees.

 

As for the NL, they had their moment last year, but I believe that the AL has the three best 'playoff' teams in the Yankees Angels and Red Sox (curse aside). And frankly I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that any NL team is better on paper than those three teams. I know that games aren't played on paper, but it's regarded as a fluke when the inferior team wins; either way the Yankees lost, not the other team won. Kind of like last year's series, the talk everywhere is how the Yankees lost it, not how the Marlins won it.

 

As for the logos, sure, but baseball's biggest money maker are the hats, so of course the logos are noticeable, but I don't agree with your statement of the alignment being "perfect." If we played in the AL East, I think we'd bitch bitch bitch about the disgusting economic imbalance. Finally, the playoff system is great because just getting to the playoffs is a reward, but I don't think there's any denying that adding as much as 2 (I can hear the purists already screaming) playoff teams in each league would seriously boost baseball's popularity, and that's what I think needs to be done. Think about it, we're the only sport with a schedule that runs over 100 games, and of those games, numerous teams play 2 months of meaningless games (I say this generously because Montreal Arizona and Seattle have been playing meaningless games for about a month already, but I consider the trade-deadline as the official "white flag" point). This kills the franchises on more than one level because they lose casual fans' support during the final month(s), and lose popularity to the opening NFL season when a city has shared franchises. I can't honestly think of an argument against expanding the playoff field because it makes more teams relevant, and relevant teams become much more popular than irrelevant teams.

 

But I'm not commissioner...

Miami is only about basketball because of Shaq. If he gets injured watch everybody forget about them. The Marlins are too young to have the support of a big team but I bet in 20 years they will be like the Yankees or Red Sox.

But this is a football city thanks to Dan Marino.

Thanks to Dan Marino, and Don Shula, and the undefeated season, and ...

So does anything change now that besides no QB, no Norv Turner, and a overrated defense you add in no running game?

nope because people live and die by the fins here.

we'll they're about to die by them

 

With the departure of Ricky and the arrival of Shaq, this could easily make the Heat the #1 team here. The Marlis and Dolphins kind of balance out in the way of the WS but this being an football town.

So does anything change now that besides no QB, no Norv Turner, and a overrated defense you add in no running game?

474631[/snapback]

 

i still live and die with them (mostly die) like i do with the marlins and heat.

Right now its basing on the things that happened.

 

Dolphins

Heat

Marlins

 

Mine would be

 

Dolphins

Marlins

Heat

 

I've always liked the football much more than baseball. The dolphins could go on a streak of losing seasons and I would still like them better than the rest of the teams because Dolphins our my favorite franchise period and I think most real Dolphin fans feel the same way.

Retirement of Ricky only brings back the Dolphins back to spotlight(Negative).Now the conversations will be all Dolphins in all sport talk radion in S.Florida.

Retirement of Ricky only brings back the Dolphins back to spotlight(Negative).Now the conversations will be all Dolphins in all sport talk radion in S.Florida.

474763[/snapback]

 

they even mentioned it this afternoon on Hot 105 while theyre playing the blues. the dj pretty much went off on him.

On 560AM people were calling in almost in tears.

This is still a football town and people will talk about Ricky for the whole year. But I bet Shaq and the Marlins love this news because a lot of bandwagon fans are already jumping off. We will be lucky to win 5 games this season.