Pet Peeve # 2,954,212

[D'Artagnan1673]

Every set of commercials during a baseball game or the history channel is flooded with advertisements for AOL.

The only thing worse I can think of are the ads for psychic readings.

[counter riposte]

Yeah,

I don't want to go off on a rant here but think about this:

Cable airtime i.e. History Channel, Discovery, Learning, etc. are relatively cheap (in terms of airtime) as opposed to ABC, NBC or CBS. The reason is that there is a lot more time available to advertizers than that of network. Simple supply and demand.

Having said that, think about how cheap it is to advertize on baseball programming now. I don't know about the east coast, where fans live and die by the home team, but the national pastime of the west coast, isn't really the national pastime. You can see it in the declining ticket sales, and cities such as San Diego, picking up the bill for seats not sold.

The following is dropping. The stike has damaged baseball's image, and fans are slowly falling away. When you have owners paying millions of dollars with only the objective of winning and players who are in it for the paychecks, where is the sport?

Where is the glory of winning for the simple glory of the sport? Where atheletes compete fore the joy of winning rather than the promise of a paycheck? Where nothing matters but the bottom line of where a new ballpark is going to go or how much the franchise is making, or where nothing else matters but the down payment on a new Ferrari?

Look at San Diego's Ryan Leaf (the big crybaby), who got paid $100 million to lose an ENTIRE season, before being released. Maybe it's just me, but maybe we should remember the purpose of sport, which is to play, and have fun active and healthy lives. Not sitting in front of a tube, yelling and screaming at your team while stuffing your face with chili cheeze fries and hotdogs!!!

Instead of selling airtime and trying to make a buck, why not promote health, fitness and excercise by encouraging people to get out once in a while instead of selling to the highest bidder? Why? Because it would be cheaper to get them to sit in front of the tube and veg from all that inactivity!!!!! @%#$#!!!!

But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.

[achilleus]

Originally posted by counter riposte
Yeah,

I don't want to go off on a rant here but think about this:

Cable airtime i.e. History Channel, Discovery, Learning, etc. are relatively cheap (in terms of airtime) as opposed to ABC, NBC or CBS. The reason is that there is a lot more time available to advertizers than that of network. Simple supply and demand.

Having said that, think about how cheap it is to advertize on baseball programming now. I don't know about the east coast, where fans live and die by the home team, but the national pastime of the west coast, isn't really the national pastime. You can see it in the declining ticket sales, and cities such as San Diego, picking up the bill for seats not sold.

The following is dropping. The stike has damaged baseball's image, and fans are slowly falling away. When you have owners paying millions of dollars with only the objective of winning and players who are in it for the paychecks, where is the sport?

Where is the glory of winning for the simple glory of the sport? Where atheletes compete fore the joy of winning rather than the promise of a paycheck? Where nothing matters but the bottom line of where a new ballpark is going to go or how much the franchise is making, or where nothing else matters but the down payment on a new Ferrari?

Look at San Diego's Ryan Leaf (the big crybaby), who got paid $100 million to lose an ENTIRE season, before being released. Maybe it's just me, but maybe we should remember the purpose of sport, which is to play, and have fun active and healthy lives. Not sitting in front of a tube, yelling and screaming at your team while stuffing your face with chili cheeze fries and hotdogs!!!

Instead of selling airtime and trying to make a buck, why not promote health, fitness and excercise by encouraging people to get out once in a while instead of selling to the highest bidder? Why? Because it would be cheaper to get them to sit in front of the tube and veg from all that inactivity!!!!! @%#$#!!!!

But that's my opinion... I could be wrong.

Tell us how you really feel...

[lochinvar]

Counter riposte, you mention supply and demand and then rant about how the market "rewards" athletes. Doesn't make sense to me...

Things are worth whatever someone is willing to pay for them. The fact that a Ryan Leaf can get $100 million means that someone thinks he's worth that much.

It used to be that the exciting and talented players put butts in the stadium seats, and were payed accordingly. The owner paid them X dollars because he/she/they thought they could make that much back and more on ticket sales. It wasn't a salary, it was an investment.

When TV came along, advertisers were willing to pay big bucks to get their message out. Networks set their rates by the audience they expect to pull; winning athletes (and winning teams) pull big audiences, so the networks make more money. To get that money, they are willing to split it with the leagues, who then pay some of it to the players.

It's a win/win/win situation so far as the networks, owners, and players are concerned. The owners are willing to pay huge salaries because they will make even more in TV contract revenue; the networks are willing to shell out contract revenue because they make even more in advertising sales.

Meanwhile, the poor fan (like you and I) are priced out of the market. We can't afford tickets to the game, because the demand is so high. And the demand is so high because corporations and businesses use season tickets as a sweetener for suppliers and key employees. The ticket costs are written off as advertising, and the consumers foot the bill.

Statements about "playing for the love of the game" are meaningless. The day they decided to pay players and charge admission was the day it became a business, and business follows market laws just like any other business.

If you're correct, and enthusiasm is waning, then we should see ratings and market share fall for televised games; the networks won't be able to make any money on the advertising, and so will be unwilling to shell out the big bucks to the leagues; salaries will fall, and balance will be restored.

Supply and demand rules all, counter. As long as people continue to tune in, the system will remain as it is.

[Inquartata]

Egad, there are 2,954,211 peeves BEFORE this one?

And I thought I was a querulous old curmudgeon!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

First of all, on the east coast baseball is still the national pastime. We, at least in Boston, live and die by it.

Second, Ryan Leaf didn't even make close to $100 million in his first year. He was paid well, but not that well. The most a pleyr has ever been paid in 1 year is $25.2 million, and that is A-Rod.

I agree with you, it is a business; and supply and demand is the theory that rules. Maybe if Americans, I being one of them, would stop caring about a piece of wood and a ball, the pices would fall. But I oubt that will happen, becasue I know I myself for one will always love baseball.

My pete peve: People who post their pet peves......j/k.

[Spanky]

Recently, I've had a cahnce to watch some american sports, namely, baseball and 'merican football. Seems to an outsider like me, that fans only have to conkcentrate ont eh action for a few seconds with breaks in the action in between. Now, I am used to sports like rugby/soccer where you have to take in non-stop action for 40/45min at a time. So, does this say anything about the average 'merican fan's concentration span...or what it is thought to be?

[D'Artagnan1673]

Zounds! I meant for this to be a rant on AOL commericials. I see it has taken a life of its own.

[oiuyt]

Ryan Leaf's entire CONTRACT with the chargers was for $31.25 mil (the largest in Chargers history). That's an unguaranteed contract. All salary for time after the release wasn't paid. Leaf was signed July 25th '98, was released Feb 28th '01, 3 seasons later. The Bucs had him next, released him before he played. Then the Cowboys had him for a $3mil/2 year deal, he played 1 year and then was released (therefore not getting paid for the second year). Then he had a 1 year $525,000 deal with the Seahawks who released him before he played. An interesting note is that the $31.25 was not only for the entire (4-6 year depending on performance) contract, but that figure included incentives requiring Leaf to achieve Pro-Bowl stats. He clearly failed to do so... :) The basic deal was 6 years, $13.2 million ($11.25 million of which was guaranteed signing bonus).

So Leaf, rather than make $100million for a single crappy year made a total of ~$15mil for his entire career (including getting hit by 300lb linemen for 4 seasons). If you're going to rant about the salaries that pro players get, at least get into the same ballpark as the actual numbers. It's not like the amount they actually get paid doesn't give you enough material to work with.

-B :)

[Spanky McFarland]

Originally posted by counter riposte


Where is the glory of winning for the simple glory of the sport? Where atheletes compete fore the joy of winning rather than the promise of a paycheck? Where nothing matters but the bottom line of where a new ballpark is going to go or how much the franchise is making, or where nothing else matters but the down payment on a new Ferrari?

Unfortunately, we all live in a Capitalist society, were success is measured by how much we all earn. Is it any wonder that the elite are paid so much money? The same thing happens in corporations, with the CEO's receiving millions in salaries and share options.

When the money is removed, as in fencing, people do try to win for the glory of the sport, as there is no other incentive. As soon as you introduce vast rewards to a sport, people will take it up as a means of making a living, rather than for the sheer love of it. I'm sure that, amongst the playboys, there are elite athletes who happen to have become rich, but who love their sport. Equally, there comes a point when an athlete is so rich, that the money is no longer important (Agassi, Sampras, etc), so what reason do they have for competing other than glory?

If you want to eradicate people who only take part in a sport for the sake of the money, try introducing Communism to the West.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Spanky I don't think it has to do with the attention span of Americans, but more of the type of games that Americans like to play. I say this because besball, invented in the late 1800's, by who knows, was obviously not televised. And, to start off, was not intended to become a major sport. Therefore, it had nothing to do with the attention span of the average American Joe.

And, I find what Ryanb Leaf did was actually quite brilliant. Many people go to jobs they hate, to support their family. It's just the way it is. Well ryan Leaf, realizing he was good at football did the same. He went through college on a full ride, which was smart, and got into the rpos. There he signed a fairly large contract to do something he hated. Now after only 4 years of football, he is retired with $15 mill in a bank somewhere. Now some people called him a quiter, but if you had the chance to make that kind of cash in 4 years then retire and be set for life, wouldn't you?

[Spanky McFarland]

Hmmm. I was about to complain that I had said nothing about the attention span of Americans, when I realised that there was another Spanky. This could get confusing...

[haggis]

I was going to say something about the attention span of American sports fans but then I realised that it would take so long to say that you'd have switched off anyway.

[lochinvar]

Huh? You talking to me?

If you think there's nothing going in in baseball or [American] football just because they're not at the moment running or kicking or whatever, then you don't understand the games.

In baseball the fielders have to be ready all the time, because any pitch might end with the ball in play. And what you can't see on TV is the shifting of the outfielders and infielders that happens depending on who's at bat, who's pitching, etc. The players are in constant mental motion, trying to out-fox each other--the pitcher trying to mis-direct the batter, the batter trying to mis-direct the fielders, etc. I admit it's sometimes boring to watch on the telly, but once you understand the game it's much more fun to watch from the stands.

As for football, you have to understand the time frame. Each play is like a mini-game in itself; your strategy meets their strategy head-on, and the outcome decides what comes next. Then we all take a moment, formulate a new plan (on both sides), and do it again. It's a series of set-pieces strung together, not just one continuous game.

Well, I'd go on, but my attention just wandered... Wonder what's on the other channel... Hand me that remote, willya?