ARod's future

In <I4idnd4kXvFcJQTbnZ2dnUVZ_oa3nZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>, Steve Robbins
wrote:

>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize.  But if he is
>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no
>> understanding of NFL economics.
>>
>> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand
>> NFL economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>
> Ummm....why is that?   I follow baseball fairly well (as time
> constraints allow).   And I am in a NG with you Yahoos (whomever
> makes up that group).   Because what time I have goes into baseball,
> I only follow football casually.   So you are saying that my
> baseball knowledge is worthless because I don't know in depth
> information about football economics?   Sounds like a strange leap.

There are more things in heaven and earth -- people who follow MLB but
not the NFL, people who think Ann Coulter is a lunatic, not a
"prominent conservative speaker," people who think that mining the US
border with Mexico is probably not a very smart idea, I'm sure the
list goes on and on -- than are dreamt of in Fred's philosophy.

--
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> writes:

> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.DeleteThis@flat222.org> wrote in message
> news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>> I don't know much about football.
>
>
> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????

There's more to sport than American sport, and there's more to the world
than America. I'm British.

> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
> in serious question.

What do you think of Sunderland's chances of avoiding relegation this
year?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"The future's so dull I've got to sing torch songs"
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:

> Kieth, for the record, the NFL has a hard salary cap, total sharing of
> all TV revenues, and no guaranteed contracts... and it is the most
> successful professional team sports league in North America, by far.

Is it? By what measurement? It beats MLB in revenues $5.86bn to $5.2bn,
which isn't bad, but I don't think it counts as 'by far'. MLB, of
course, has vastly higher paid attendance each year, but comparing both
revenues and attendance is pretty hard given the difference between an
eight game home schedule that creates low supply and high demand versus
an 81-game home schedule that produces high supply and lower demand. I'd
say that both leagues are doing damned well.

> Every team competes on an equal economic level and success or failure
> is strictly a matter of good management and on-field performance.

I'm not sure that a league in which the Yankees' 7 million fans would
get to celebrate as many championships as the Royals' 0.5 million fans
is something that's desirable. (Numbers picked out of my arse, but I'd
imagine the ratio is good). In addition, I definitely don't want a
league in which a team that works hard to expand revenues would have
their hard work leeched upon by freeloaders.

Given your professed political leanings, I'm not sure why you support
socialism in professional sport. I find it highly ironic that I'm the
one defending the market here.

> MLB could learn a LOT from the NFL economic model.

Well, it'd be good for the owners, I guess.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Shoulders back, lovely boy
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:
> "Keith Willoughby" <keith DeleteThis @flat222.org> wrote in message
> news:87644mpivr.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org...
>> "Fred Burton" <fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> writes:

<snip>

>>> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you hate the NFL
>>> and the economic model that they use that has provided an exceptional
>>> level of competitive parity to every single team in the league.
>> I don't know much about football.
>
>
> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>
> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've said
> in serious question.

Take it easy, Fred. You dislike soccer and likely know very little about
it (I'm assuming) as an economic model. So how you can discuss baseball
economics without knowing about the most widely played professional
sport in the world?

mario in victori
--
"The rules of normalcy have been temporarily suspended. New rules are
being made up. There is no guarantee that the new rules will bear any
resemblance to the old rules. All in all, this would have been a good
day to stay in bed."

Options, Robert Sheckley
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Jul 15, 6:25 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:


> > Putting weights on horses is not about competitive balance. It is
> > about encouraging more betting.
>
> Baloney. Competitive balance encourages more betting.

Nonsense. The volume of (total amount and estimated number of
bettors) football betting has very little to do with competitive
balance. Perhaps you've heard of something called point spread? (cf.
Steven Levitt's research on gambling markets)
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Jul 15, 11:07 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur... RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:
> "gnork" <gnor... RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jgqmi.7853$Od7.1063@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > "Fred Burton" <fbur... RemoveThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
> >news:f7d6dj$2bog$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> >> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it
> > would
> >> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>
> > Mining the border would be insane and surely a violation of myriads of
> > laws.
> > Anyone who advocates it isn't thinking well.
>
> Why "surely"? Why "insane"? And what laws? What about the laws that these
> INVADERS are breaking? What about the people who are killed EVERY DAY
> by these INVADERS? More Americans are being killed EVERY DAY by these
> INVADERS than are killing in Iraq, but the Lame-stream media doesn't tell us
> that
> little tidbit.
>
> So then, what's so "insane" about getting serious about TRULY defending our
> borders against these INVADERS?
>
>
>
> >> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
> >> that SHE
> >> is the lunatic.
>
> > She may not be a lunatic, but she is a very loose cannon.
>
> I'll agree that she's a loose cannon. Then again, she's a writer,
> not a member of the RNC.

I was going to comment on "ARod's future". Am I in the right place?
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Jul 15, 6:11 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:


> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it would
> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.

You really are a blithering idiot, aren't you? We're still digging up
anti-personnel mines all along the Iron Triangle 54 years after the
Korean War. I'd personally evacuated a nine year old Korean boy back
in 1977 who'd stepped on one near Sungwon. Generals James
Hollingsworth, Hank "Gunfighter" Emerson, Douglas Kinnard, and David
Palmer (and the list goes on and on) who had fought in three wars
(WWII, Korea and Vietnam) currently head an overwhelming number of
flag officers who have begged the United States government to sign the
Ottawa Protocol banning landmines.

Since you probably know less about military matters than you do about
economics, let me explain why this is an idiotic proposal of
unparalleled magnitude. First, the ones who'd get maimed or worse
killed are mostly women and children. Do you have any frigging idea
how many mines would be needed to cover the border? There are
estimated *2million* mines along the DMZ that stretches out 155miles.
Even if you don't strive for the same level of saturation, do you have
any clue the quantity that would be required to effectively cover
1900miles?

As for properly marking them and keeping a master list, guess what?
The Army studies have concluded that *more* American casualties in
Korea were caused by US *defensive minefields* than enemy mines.
Finally, if you're concerned about al-Qaeda penetrating the US from
our southern border, just use your brain and think whether it's a good
idea to make about 5000 tons of military grade explosives available to
them. An al-Qaeda operative who survived Iraq against US forces (it's
a rite of passage for the current generation) and underwent rigorous
training in Pakistan isn't going to have a problem navigating a
minefield as these people would have the skills to identify and disarm
them (In fact 90 percent of all component parts of mines used against
US forces in Vietnam were US-made). And what they could do with
salvaged explosives would make Main Street USA resemble the Triangle
of Death.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:

>>
> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
> of NFL economics.
>
> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand NFL
> economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>
>

Hey Fred, I'm American, and the only sport I follow is baseball. I
really don't know much of anything about the NFL. Are you trying to say
that if I don't know about the NFL I'm not fit to post here?

>
> Kieth, for the record, the NFL has a hard salary cap, total sharing of
> all TV revenues, and no guaranteed contracts... and it is the most
> successful
> professional team sports league in North America, by far. Every team
> competes on an equal economic level and success or failure is strictly a
> matter
> of good management and on-field performance.
>
> MLB could learn a LOT from the NFL economic model.
>

That might be so, but it doesn't negate any of the points that Keith
made regarding whether small market MLB teams can compete, which you
ignored on the basis of your superior knowledge of the NFL.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"John Doherty" <jdoherty DeleteThis @nowhere.null.not> wrote in message
news:f7cegd01su6@news2.newsguy.com...
> In <I4idnd4kXvFcJQTbnZ2dnUVZ_oa3nZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>, Steve Robbins
> wrote:
>
>>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he is
>>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no
>>> understanding of NFL economics.
>>>
>>> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand
>>> NFL economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>>
>> Ummm....why is that? I follow baseball fairly well (as time
>> constraints allow). And I am in a NG with you Yahoos (whomever
>> makes up that group). Because what time I have goes into baseball,
>> I only follow football casually. So you are saying that my
>> baseball knowledge is worthless because I don't know in depth
>> information about football economics? Sounds like a strange leap.
>
> There are more things in heaven and earth -- people who follow MLB but
> not the NFL, people who think Ann Coulter is a lunatic, not a
> "prominent conservative speaker," people who think that mining the US
> border with Mexico is probably not a very smart idea, I'm sure the
> list goes on and on -- than are dreamt of in Fred's philosophy.
>
1. First of all, I don't think that you have to "follow the NFL" to
understand
its economic model.

2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it would
be an outstandingly brilliant idea.

3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
that SHE
is the lunatic.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Steve Robbins" <srobbins31 RemoveThis @no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I4idnd4kXvFcJQTbnZ2dnUVZ_oa3nZ2d@comcast.com...
> Fred Burton wrote:
>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
>> of NFL economics.
>>
>> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand NFL
>> economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>
> Ummm....why is that? I follow baseball fairly well (as time constraints
> allow). And I am in a NG with you Yahoos (whomever makes up that group).
> Because what time I have goes into baseball, I only follow football
> casually. So you are saying that my baseball knowledge is worthless
> because I don't know in depth information about football economics?
> Sounds like a strange leap.
>
> IOW, your statement says I shouldn't be (or I am lame to be) in the Red
> Sox newsgroup because I don't understand NFL economics.


What's "IOW"?

And for the record, I didn't say that one's baseball knowledge was worthless
if one didn't understand football economics. I said that not understanding
NFL
economics weakens one's stands on baseball economics. To understand, at
a layman's level, only baseball's economic model without understanding the
economic model for the NFL *is* lame. it doesn't require some sort of
college degree to be able to tick off the 3 or 4 items that define the NFL's
economic model and how it differs from MLB. If you can't do that, I *do*
say that my opinion of *your* opinions is lessened because your knowledge
and, hence, your opinions are too limited.

And mind you, I am in no way saying that you would need to agree with the
NFL's
economic model, just be able to know a couple of key points in it for
comparison
when discussing MLB's economic model. To not have this rather minor
knowledge
*is* rather lame for a sports fan.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mmbj93t79mams0gri1lsnoifrmqit1r09j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:56:03 -0400, "Fred Burton"
> <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bob-Nob" <bobnob15.DeleteThis@SPaMol.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns996DBE07ABDD2bobnob15aolcom@207.217.125.201...
>>> Fred Burton venit, vidit, et dixit:
>>>> "Keith Willoughby" <keith.DeleteThis@flat222.org> wrote...
>>>>> "Fred Burton" <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> IMHO, only well-run mid-market teams and big market teams have any
>>>>>> real chance of competitive success in MLB.
>>>
>>>>> Name me, say, the ten teams you think have no chance of competing.
>>>>> See if they'd be the same ten you'd have named five years ago.
>>>>> Remember when the Twins were supposed to be contracted?
>>>
>>>>>> And I suppose from the tone of that last sentence, that you
>>>>>> hate the NFL and the economic model that they use that has
>>>>>> provided an exceptional level of competitive parity to every
>>>>>> single team in the league.
>>>
>>>>> I don't know much about football.
>>>
>>>> Oh, give me a break. How can you knowledgeably talk about the
>>>> economics of sports and have no clue about the NFL????
>>>
>>>> This specific lack of knowledge really puts the rest of what you've
>>>> said in serious question.
>>>
>>> Unless you're particularly knowledgable about the English Premier
>>> League (among others), I think you're probably being unfair here.
>>> There are lots of sports to follow -- you can hardly blame Keith
>>> for not following one of the them, even if it is one that you
>>> yourself follow.
>>>
>>Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
>>an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>>being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
>>of NFL economics.
>>
>>I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand NFL
>>economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>>
>>
>>
>>Kieth, for the record, the NFL has a hard salary cap, total sharing of
>>all TV revenues, and no guaranteed contracts... and it is the most
>>successful
>>professional team sports league in North America, by far. Every team
>>competes on an equal economic level and success or failure is strictly a
>>matter
>>of good management and on-field performance.
>>
>>MLB could learn a LOT from the NFL economic model.
>>
>>
> Keith, just for the record, what Fred just said is totally nuts unless
> "success" is defined in terms of guaranteeing huge profits to
> incompetent owners.

What a bunch of leftist horseshit this post is, McD. Your constant
and hateful anti-owner rants peg you as an owner-hating commie pinko.



>
> In brief, competitive balance is about revenue sharing. The cap is
> about money for the owners. The NFL does have revenue sharing, and
> that is the key to its limited success at competitive balance. It is
> also famous for giving poor teams easier schedules.

Baloney. The Cap *IS* most certainly and absolutely a means of helping
to maintain competitive balance. Revenue sharing and parity scheduling
wouldn't mean jackshit without the salary cap. If all of the sudden there
was no salary cap and, say, the NY Giants could spend 5 times as much as
the average team, don't lie thru your teeth and try to tell any sane person
that that wouldn't have an impact on competitive balance, because it most
absolutely would.



>
> Putting weights on horses is not about competitive balance. It is
> about encouraging more betting.

Baloney. Competitive balance encourages more betting.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:

>>
> 1. First of all, I don't think that you have to "follow the NFL" to
> understand
> its economic model.
>

Except that, if you don't follow the NFL, why would you even know what
the economic model is? I'm sure that many more people are capable of
understanding that model than know anything about it.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton wrote:
> "Steve Robbins" <srobbins31 RemoveThis @no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aZ-dnWIxWq9XuwfbnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>> "Steve Robbins" <srobbins31 RemoveThis @no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:I4idnd4kXvFcJQTbnZ2dnUVZ_oa3nZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>>>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
>>>>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>>>>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
>>>>> of NFL economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand NFL
>>>>> economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>>>> Ummm....why is that? I follow baseball fairly well (as time
>>>> constraints allow). And I am in a NG with you Yahoos (whomever makes
>>>> up that group). Because what time I have goes into baseball, I only
>>>> follow football casually. So you are saying that my baseball knowledge
>>>> is worthless because I don't know in depth information about football
>>>> economics? Sounds like a strange leap.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, your statement says I shouldn't be (or I am lame to be) in the Red
>>>> Sox newsgroup because I don't understand NFL economics.
>>>
>>> What's "IOW"?
>> "In Other Words"
>>
>>> And for the record, I didn't say that one's baseball knowledge was
>>> worthless
>>> if one didn't understand football economics. I said that not
>>> understanding NFL
>>> economics weakens one's stands on baseball economics. To understand, at
>>> a layman's level, only baseball's economic model without understanding
>>> the
>>> economic model for the NFL *is* lame. it doesn't require some sort of
>>> college degree to be able to tick off the 3 or 4 items that define the
>>> NFL's
>>> economic model and how it differs from MLB. If you can't do that, I *do*
>>> say that my opinion of *your* opinions is lessened because your knowledge
>>> and, hence, your opinions are too limited.
>>>
>>> And mind you, I am in no way saying that you would need to agree with the
>>> NFL's
>>> economic model, just be able to know a couple of key points in it for
>>> comparison
>>> when discussing MLB's economic model. To not have this rather minor
>>> knowledge
>>> *is* rather lame for a sports fan.
>> I still think your stand is overly harsh
>
> I believe in speaking harsh truths over nampy-pamby "diplomatic"
> half-truths.
> I believe in the old saw "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the
> kitchen".
> I dispise diplo-speak, and toning down one's words out of fear of hurting
> someone's feelings. I say what I believe and if that hurts your
> feeeeeelings,
> that's your problem, not mine.

My point is that you are getting so riled up about it, you are not
presenting your point clearly.


>
>> and most of it seems to center around your usage of lame. I think in
>> trying to make a point, you are overstating yourself. First you said
>> that being in a NG without understanding NFL economics was lame.
>
> I SAID NO SUCH THING!!! Like everyone else making this claim,
> YOU DID NOT READ WHAT I WROTE. I SAID... that discussing
> MLB economics without having a layman's knowledge of NFL economics
> was lame. That is NOT the same thing as saying that you can't be "in this
> NG without understanding NFL economics". Not by a long shot.
>
> Read what I wrote! Not what you THINK that I wrote or want to believe
> that I wrote. Read the ACTUAL words more carefully.

There is no mention of MLB economics here:
"But if he *is* an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to
the degree of being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no
understanding of NFL economics."

--
The Unofficial a.s.b.b-r Reference Page
http://redsox.robbins-ut.com/index.html
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future