OT: MLB commish - Las Vegas being considered for expansion team

[Centrum Hockey]

The NFL has 97 years of tradition playing one game a week. They can literally do anything and be fine. The NHL has 100+years of tradition and has changed alignments dozens of times. But EVERYONE breaks from tradition in a "dragged kicking and screaming" way.

The AFC/NFC separation is going strong after 50 years. The Dallas Cowboys in the East with Washington, Philadelphia and NY Giants has been going strong since 1970, despite Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Jacksonville, Carolina and Houston joining the NFL since.

The NHL went from 6 to 12 and instead of geography, did Existing Six and New Six as divisions. They've also returned PHI-PIT to the same division after five years even though it's made zero geographic sense to do so. People hated the change of tradition.


We can get into this in the macro view or the micro view, whichever you like. And I have a few dozen times: Geographic Conferences are a stupid idea that do not make business sense.

Rivalries form for competing for the same thing, not from a map. (Local rivals will always hate each other. Fans will hate the fans of the team in the market that isn't YOUR TEAM, i.e. Mets/Yankees; Cubs-White Sox, Angels-Dodgers, Cardinals-Cubs. But... )

For everyone else, it doesn't matter. NHL Network isn't going to talk about the "Carolina Hurricanes vs Atlanta Thrashers" rivalries. But we've seen specials on the "Colorado Avalanche vs Detroit Red Wing" rivalry.

The idea that grouping teams by geography is going to mean more ticket sales is foolhardy. I've proved it multiple times with multiple examples, like the Sabres' attendance vs opponents, the drop in attendance for HOU vs TEX baseball games when the Astros joined the AL West.

The ONLY positive business effect of radical MLB realignment will be "more local TV start times." Which you could accomplish in other ways.

i was at that Redsox -phillies game there was at least 2000 redsox fans there regional divisions whould be great for business

 

[Melrose Munch]

The NFL has 97 years of tradition playing one game a week. They can literally do anything and be fine. The NHL has 100+years of tradition and has changed alignments dozens of times. But EVERYONE breaks from tradition in a "dragged kicking and screaming" way.

The AFC/NFC separation is going strong after 50 years. The Dallas Cowboys in the East with Washington, Philadelphia and NY Giants has been going strong since 1970, despite Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Jacksonville, Carolina and Houston joining the NFL since.

The NHL went from 6 to 12 and instead of geography, did Existing Six and New Six as divisions. They've also returned PHI-PIT to the same division after five years even though it's made zero geographic sense to do so. People hated the change of tradition.


We can get into this in the macro view or the micro view, whichever you like. And I have a few dozen times: Geographic Conferences are a stupid idea that do not make business sense.

Rivalries form for competing for the same thing, not from a map. (Local rivals will always hate each other. Fans will hate the fans of the team in the market that isn't YOUR TEAM, i.e. Mets/Yankees; Cubs-White Sox, Angels-Dodgers, Cardinals-Cubs. But... )

For everyone else, it doesn't matter. NHL Network isn't going to talk about the "Carolina Hurricanes vs Atlanta Thrashers" rivalries. But we've seen specials on the "Colorado Avalanche vs Detroit Red Wing" rivalry.

The idea that grouping teams by geography is going to mean more ticket sales is foolhardy. I've proved it multiple times with multiple examples, like the Sabres' attendance vs opponents, the drop in attendance for HOU vs TEX baseball games when the Astros joined the AL West.

The ONLY positive business effect of radical MLB realignment will be "more local TV start times." Which you could accomplish in other ways.

I don't disagree but will TV network execs agree? I don't think so. I also think the Marlins and Rays would like it. I'm guessing you won't like the alignment I posted either.

 

[KevFu]

i was at that Redsox -phillies game there was at least 2000 redsox fans there regional divisions whould be great for business

This is exactly what I mean, though: Those were EVENTS.

The Mets had visited Fenway Park only FOUR TIMES times in FIFTY THREE SEASONS (1986 World Series, 1998, 2006, 2009).

So when the 2018 schedule comes out and we're at Fenway, that's a "circle the weekend on your calendar and plan a trip" situation.


If they radically re-align, the 7 Line Army isn't making a special t-shirt and planning a massive group outing for Mets at Red Sox when it happens three times every year.

Five-years into radical realignment, the series rarity and the nostalgia would make future event outings be “the first time in two years we’re at Wrigley Field” or “Remember when we were rivals with the Braves? Let’s to the series in Atlanta and just start chanting ‘Larry’ like it’s 1998-2002.”


And we have EVIDENCE of this, thanks to the Astros switching leagues and playing their interleague rival Texas 18/19 times a year:

Interleague: 38,175 per game (72 games in 12 seasons)
American League: 31,388 per game (108 games in six seasons)

(I removed the three games moved to Tampa last year due to a hurricane)

The last season of interleague, the Astros LOST 107 games, and the TEX-HOU averaged 42,000.
The Astros and Rangers were both in the playoff race in 2016, and the 18 games averaged 31,000.

It went from EVENT, where everyone circled their calendars, to ORDINARY, where you knew they were coming multiple times, so no one planned their life around it.

 

[KevFu]

I don't disagree but will TV network execs agree? I don't think so. I also think the Marlins and Rays would like it. I'm guessing you won't like the alignment I posted either.

Oh, I was playing devil's advocate. OF COURSE, a TV network is going to generate more ad revenue from 7 pm to 10 pm than they would from 10 pm to 1 am, or 4 pm to 7 pm. THAT is fact. 100% truth.

But at the same time, if you think about the realistic world situation, I don't think when MLB execs sit down with Regional Sports Network executives, the TV guys say "Well, we'll offer you $49 million per year because you have 13 games per year that start at 10 p.m. and we'd give you $55 mil a year if it was zero."

And it's the same thing with TV networks talking to companies about buying commercials. "(MLB Team) Baseball" is the property you're acquiring rights to, or purchasing ads on. Everyone knows what that entails.

So the theory is 100% correct that you can get more money with more games at 7 p.m. I just think it probably "doesn't come up that often" in any real world application, and CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH that MLB should sacrifice to 125 years of tradition over it.

 

[KevFu]

Most teams have an ownership stake in their RSN (circumventing the amount they have to put into revenue sharing, like the Mets do). And the amount of money that actually makes its way into the central pool is only 31% of local revenues.

The most money MLB is going to see as the result of a change in all of this would be guaranteeing TWO TIME ZONES are represented in the World Series! A major selling point to TV networks.

When you look at the lowest World Series TV ratings and say “Bad match-ups like PHI vs TB, SF vs KC, SF vs TEX can’t happen anymore.”

It’s another one of those “common sense truisms,” except the HIGHEST RATED matchups would also no longer be possible:

Boston vs Mets, St. Louis vs Minnesota, Minnesota vs Atlanta, St. Louis vs Kansas City, Los Angeles vs Oakland.

Those are the top 5 WS by TV ratings ever, and all match-ups that can’t happen again with radical realignment.

Out of the Top 5 and Bottom 5 by TV ratings, the only two WS matchups still possible would be KC-NYM (fifth-LOWEST ever) and SF-DET, which was the LOWEST EVER.

Looking at the 1984-2017 World Series TV ratings:
- Match-ups No longer possible: average average 23.66 million viewers
- Match-ups still possible: average average 20.87 million viewers.

Never mind the fact that believing you can remotely raise your championship series TV ratings based on alignment manipulation is pure lunacy, even if you COULD, this would be a terrible way to do it.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2bf39c91c9d9
more discussion on rule changes will start this off season the best way to end the DH debate once and for all is to expand and Make non AL/NL regional Divisions LAA-LAD NYY/BOSTON-PHI/NYM there is so many good division match ups that Chould happen

 

[Bluto]

How about Austin, Texas? It’s a vibrant, young city with no sports teams of its own. Think Spurs are about 80 miles away but that’s the closest.

San Antonio makes more sense, but neither will happen. San Antonio wants the NFL and I wouldn't be surprised if the San Antonio Chargers becomes a thing.

Austin is a hippy town outside of UT. MLS makes sense there... not any big 4 sports team. Longhorns baseball will always overshadow an MLB team there.

 

[Bluto]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2bf39c91c9d9
more discussion on rule changes will start this off season the best way to end the DH debate once and for all is to expand and Make non AL/NL regional Divisions LAA-LAD NYY/BOSTON-PHI/NYM there is so many good division match ups that Chould happen

The Mets, yanks, Boston, and philly in the same division would be wild and I would pay to see it happen.

 

[Bluto]

This is exactly what I mean, though: Those were EVENTS.

The Mets had visited Fenway Park only FOUR TIMES times in FIFTY THREE SEASONS (1986 World Series, 1998, 2006, 2009).

So when the 2018 schedule comes out and we're at Fenway, that's a "circle the weekend on your calendar and plan a trip" situation.


If they radically re-align, the 7 Line Army isn't making a special t-shirt and planning a massive group outing for Mets at Red Sox when it happens three times every year.

Five-years into radical realignment, the series rarity and the nostalgia would make future event outings be “the first time in two years we’re at Wrigley Field” or “Remember when we were rivals with the Braves? Let’s to the series in Atlanta and just start chanting ‘Larry’ like it’s 1998-2002.”


And we have EVIDENCE of this, thanks to the Astros switching leagues and playing their interleague rival Texas 18/19 times a year:

Interleague: 38,175 per game (72 games in 12 seasons)
American League: 31,388 per game (108 games in six seasons)

(I removed the three games moved to Tampa last year due to a hurricane)

The last season of interleague, the Astros LOST 107 games, and the TEX-HOU averaged 42,000.
The Astros and Rangers were both in the playoff race in 2016, and the 18 games averaged 31,000.

It went from EVENT, where everyone circled their calendars, to ORDINARY, where you knew they were coming multiple times, so no one planned their life around it.

I think they'll take 31000 over 18 games over 41000 over 4 and run from a business perspective. It eases travel costs which are already extensive in a 162 game season as well as fatigue on players. That all Cali division would be instant rivalry of malice.
It's still a circle the calendar trip. Regional rivalries are good for business case and point NYR/NYI/NJD.
However if the giants and jets were in the same division I imagine there would likely be mad riots. I've seen some things at Giants vs Jets games... horrible things... things that makes Giants vs Eagles look tame and subdued.

 

[KevFu]

I think they'll take 31000 over 18 games over 41000 over 4 and run from a business perspective. It eases travel costs which are already extensive in a 162 game season as well as fatigue on players. That all Cali division would be instant rivalry of malice.
It's still a circle the calendar trip. Regional rivalries are good for business case and point NYR/NYI/NJD.
However if the giants and jets were in the same division I imagine there would likely be mad riots. I've seen some things at Giants vs Jets games... horrible things... things that makes Giants vs Eagles look tame and subdued.

The business perspective of radical realignment is usually a broad topic with people making assumptions with no statistical backing. It's common sense principles: People like to see NYY-NYM and NYR-NYI more than other matchups. That's totally true.

But using data for these things, we discover:
- Those matchups ARE good and remain good. But they DO drop from "guaranteed sellouts" to good attendance games.
- HOU vs TEX attendance average has dropped 8000 since it went from an interleague series, to a division series.
- Those matchups come with A LOT of other match-ups that people don't care about and that outweighs the benefits.

In hockey, my argument is that H/A vs everyone is a bad idea, because the data shows:
- Yes, teams out west DO see an rise in attendance when Crosby/Ovechkin come to town.
- But teams see a greater REDUCTION in ticket sales for the 9+ of the other teams and when you average it all out, it's lower ticket sales.

In baseball, you have to understand that the schedule unbalance is drastically different. There's a point of diminishing returns and the division assignments are going to change fans views of attractive matchups.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

San Antonio makes more sense, but neither will happen. San Antonio wants the NFL and I wouldn't be surprised if the San Antonio Chargers becomes a thing.

Austin is a hippy town outside of UT. MLS makes sense there... not any big 4 sports team. Longhorns baseball will always overshadow an MLB team there.

what BK fails to acknowledge is Dallas controls the territory in Austin, besides that everyone already knows San Antonio has pro hockey thanks to SSE

 

[BKIslandersFan]

what BK fails to acknowledge is Dallas controls the territory in Austin, besides that everyone already knows San Antonio has pro hockey thanks to SSE

Kinda like how Vegas was Kings and Ducks territory until Golden Knights came along.

 

[CHRDANHUTCH]

Kinda like how Vegas was Kings and Ducks territory until Golden Knights came along.

uh, didn't Vegas have pro hockey prior to the Knights arriving, BK, try again, Las Vegas Thunder and Wranglers say hello, btw.....

 

[KevFu]

Every inch of USA/Canada is in someone's TV territory for the four leagues. There's no "unclaimed" TV market. Plenty of overlapping or shared markets.

But with each expansion, they carve into the existing territory.

 

[Jumptheshark]

with all pro sports teams thinking about heading into Vegas--over saturation will become an issue

 

[Bluto]

with all pro sports teams thinking about heading into Vegas--over saturation will become an issue

Vegas wont have a problem that. With all the tourism, sporting events there are just another show to go to. The 3 VGK games I've been to were packed with about 1/4 of the arena being opposing fans, another 1/4th being international travelers who bought a VGK Jersey on the strip and went to a game. The appeal of USA professional sports is a global sensation.
As long as the stadiums are within walking distance of the strip, they'll never have attendance problems.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

The Knights have been a tremendous success so far, but they came around at a time when they were the perfect rallying point for the city to deal with an utter tragedy (note: I am obviously not saying this is a good thing) and were the best expansion team in essentially any sport's history, so the sample size for them being able to reliably draw at the gate is still very small. I'm thinking that they're safe, but Vegas is still a fairly small market for 3 or 4 teams potentially and relying on massive draws from traveling fans isn't the most reliable model of longterm success, even for a destination city.

To go from essentially a minor league team to possibly three major pro teams in the span of about a decade is a pretty massive risk of oversaturation.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

The business perspective of radical realignment is usually a broad topic with people making assumptions with no statistical backing. It's common sense principles: People like to see NYY-NYM and NYR-NYI more than other matchups. That's totally true.

But using data for these things, we discover:
- Those matchups ARE good and remain good. But they DO drop from "guaranteed sellouts" to good attendance games.
- HOU vs TEX attendance average has dropped 8000 since it went from an interleague series, to a division series.
- Those matchups come with A LOT of other match-ups that people don't care about and that outweighs the benefits.

In hockey, my argument is that H/A vs everyone is a bad idea, because the data shows:
- Yes, teams out west DO see an rise in attendance when Crosby/Ovechkin come to town.
- But teams see a greater REDUCTION in ticket sales for the 9+ of the other teams and when you average it all out, it's lower ticket sales.

In baseball, you have to understand that the schedule unbalance is drastically different. There's a point of diminishing returns and the division assignments are going to change fans views of attractive matchups.

it did not seem like the Mets drew well when they played the Marlins and Braves the Yankees and Redsox Could bring nearby fans there are a lot of Boston Fans in CT and Western ma who make the drive up when the New England Teams play the NYC ones

 

[KevFu]

it did not seem like the Mets drew well when they played the Marlins and Braves the Yankees and Redsox Could bring nearby fans there are a lot of Boston Fans in CT and Western ma who make the drive up when the New England Teams play the NYC ones

The attendance numbers could be based off of the "exclusivity" of the events. Under the current MLB schedule model, the Mets average 2.83 home games per year against NYY/BOS (2 or 3 vs NYY every year, 3 vs BOS every six years).

The Mets play 38 home games against MIA/ATL/WAS/PHI. And at least two of them are going to be bad teams that are ordinary and boring.

Red Sox/Yankees is a huge draw because they've been division rivals competing for the top spot in the division most the time as the two best/richest teams of their division historically over the last 115 years. Why would the Mets/Red Sox be like that? Isn’t it more likely that Mets/Red Sox is like the BAL/BOS rivalry? Red Sox at Baltimore averaged 19,580 per game this year, in nine home games.

It probably would be higher for BOS, just because of how hard it is to get a ticket in Fenway when the Sox are winning.

 

[KevFu]

with all pro sports teams thinking about heading into Vegas--over saturation will become an issue

Vegas wont have a problem that. With all the tourism

The Knights have been a tremendous success so far, but they…

were the best expansion team in essentially any sport's history, so the sample size for them being able to reliably draw at the gate is still very small…

To go from essentially a minor league team to possibly three major pro teams in the span of about a decade is a pretty massive risk of oversaturation.

I think you guys are putting WAY too much emphasis on “attendance” and “ticket sales” as if there’s a 1-to-1 ration of tickets to revenue.

Take a look at Buffalo. The Sabres have beat the Bruins in attendance 11 of the last 12 years. The Sabres are rocking like 98% capacity over the last 12 seasons.

But Boston trounces Buffalo in revenue over that span by an average of $41 million a year.

CORPORATE DOLLARS. Suites and advertising is where the money is. The corporate sales of Vegas are going to be so damned good that the Knights will still be fine if the upper deck is a ghost town.

 

[Jumptheshark]

I think you guys are putting WAY too much emphasis on “attendance” and “ticket sales” as if there’s a 1-to-1 ration of tickets to revenue.

Take a look at Buffalo. The Sabres have beat the Bruins in attendance 11 of the last 12 years. The Sabres are rocking like 98% capacity over the last 12 seasons.

But Boston trounces Buffalo in revenue over that span by an average of $41 million a year.

CORPORATE DOLLARS. Suites and advertising is where the money is. The corporate sales of Vegas are going to be so damned good that the Knights will still be fine if the upper deck is a ghost town.

and that is what I am talking about

There are only so many corporate bucks to go around and if both the NFL and NBA do go to Vegas that will have an affect on the saturation level. No matter how big or small a city is--there is only so much Corporate bucks to go around

 

[Bluto]

I think you guys are putting WAY too much emphasis on “attendance” and “ticket sales” as if there’s a 1-to-1 ration of tickets to revenue.

Take a look at Buffalo. The Sabres have beat the Bruins in attendance 11 of the last 12 years. The Sabres are rocking like 98% capacity over the last 12 seasons.

But Boston trounces Buffalo in revenue over that span by an average of $41 million a year.

CORPORATE DOLLARS. Suites and advertising is where the money is. The corporate sales of Vegas are going to be so damned good that the Knights will still be fine if the upper deck is a ghost town.

Vegas makes a ton of money on merchandise. Tourists from all over the world party on the strip and buy golden knights attire. There is not a gift shop on the strip that doesn't have raiders and knights gear. The knights sold more merch last year than any other team.
To add to it: there are so many corporate seminars that buy out boxes from around the world that come to vegas. That market will be fine.
I tried to get a box for a preseason game and it was $5k for 20 seats. And they sold out preseason.

 

[BattleBorn]

I think you guys are putting WAY too much emphasis on “attendance” and “ticket sales” as if there’s a 1-to-1 ration of tickets to revenue.

Take a look at Buffalo. The Sabres have beat the Bruins in attendance 11 of the last 12 years. The Sabres are rocking like 98% capacity over the last 12 seasons.

But Boston trounces Buffalo in revenue over that span by an average of $41 million a year.

CORPORATE DOLLARS. Suites and advertising is where the money is. The corporate sales of Vegas are going to be so damned good that the Knights will still be fine if the upper deck is a ghost town.

Corporate sales aren't as huge as you'd think in Las Vegas. For as much as I was angered by the idea that corporate sales were going to get a team in Vegas, I'll stay as angered in saying that corporate sales aren't going to make a team in Vegas successful, despite the fact that I'd like for my team to be successful.

VGK needs to be a local team, and they understand that, which is why they blocked out corporate sales during the season ticket drive. That was a smart decision, and something that will hopefully keep the team sound in the future. The people of Las Vegas are the key to the success of the Golden Knights, not the corporate dollars. Las Vegas is not Toronto, business-wise. If the people of Las Vegas are hurting for money, so are the corporations of Las Vegas.

Las Vegas is a very risky city for such a large investment. At this point, the chances of Las Vegas becoming the next Chicago hockey-wise are equal to the chances of Las Vegas becoming the next Glendale. Nothing is guaranteed, and an economic downturn for local corporations directly correlates with the downturn of local residents.

Las Vegas isn't a one trick pony, but it's not as economically diverse as most of the other major league cities, especially when it comes to hockey or any other pro sport that requires disposable income. Las Vegas' entire economy is built on disposable income. Once that starts shriveling, the city does too. At least until they can figure out how to diversify.

and that is what I am talking about

There are only so many corporate bucks to go around and if both the NFL and NBA do go to Vegas that will have an affect on the saturation level. No matter how big or small a city is--there is only so much Corporate bucks to go around

Saturation level doesn't matter until the economy winds up in the can. It's a boom or bust kind of city. Las Vegas just has the benefit of being a great place for opposing fans to make an excuse to see a game.

 

[Centrum Hockey]

The Knights have been a tremendous success so far, but they came around at a time when they were the perfect rallying point for the city to deal with an utter tragedy (note: I am obviously not saying this is a good thing) and were the best expansion team in essentially any sport's history, so the sample size for them being able to reliably draw at the gate is still very small. I'm thinking that they're safe, but Vegas is still a fairly small market for 3 or 4 teams potentially and relying on massive draws from traveling fans isn't the most reliable model of longterm success, even for a destination city.

To go from essentially a minor league team to possibly three major pro teams in the span of about a decade is a pretty massive risk of oversaturation.

will Seattle NHL have a problem if team 32 is not as successful as the knights out of the gate since the sonics left the city feel in love with the Seahawks during their Superbowl run and the city gained the sounders.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Corporate sales aren't as huge as you'd think in Las Vegas. For as much as I was angered by the idea that corporate sales were going to get a team in Vegas, I'll stay as angered in saying that corporate sales aren't going to make a team in Vegas successful, despite the fact that I'd like for my team to be successful.

VGK needs to be a local team, and they understand that, which is why they blocked out corporate sales during the season ticket drive. That was a smart decision, and something that will hopefully keep the team sound in the future. The people of Las Vegas are the key to the success of the Golden Knights, not the corporate dollars. Las Vegas is not Toronto, business-wise. If the people of Las Vegas are hurting for money, so are the corporations of Las Vegas.

Las Vegas is a very risky city for such a large investment. At this point, the chances of Las Vegas becoming the next Chicago hockey-wise are equal to the chances of Las Vegas becoming the next Glendale. Nothing is guaranteed, and an economic downturn for local corporations directly correlates with the downturn of local residents.

Las Vegas isn't a one trick pony, but it's not as economically diverse as most of the other major league cities, especially when it comes to hockey.



Saturation level doesn't matter until the economy winds up in the can. It's a boom or bust kind of city. Las Vegas just has the benefit of being a great place for opposing fans to make an excuse to see a game.

the issue I see is from what I saw from Edmonton and many other fans--last year there were a lot of fans who flew down from Edmonton--I do not know the number but I know many oiler fans are making it a yearly thing to go see all Oiler games in Vegas. Same with the hawks fans I know. Even though much of the Vegas population is considered transient, they need to be able to grow the game with the locals who are there year round and not have a large split on who the home crowd is going for