jazzcyclist wrote:But baseball seems, which has had fewer rule changes and equipment advances over the last 100 years, seems to be as popular in the 21st century as it was in the 19th century.
The World Series tv ratings are about 1/3 of what they used to be at their peak.
On the positive side, it is rather popular among Latinos and Asians, the two fastest growing demographic groups in the US. It also has "US vs.THEM" structure, which is very important in today's sports market. Most people in my neighborhood lose interest in MLB as soon as the Cardinals are out of the play-off contention. They are Cardinals fans, not baseball nor even MLB fans. But that does not matter to their business.
After following this discussion for a while, I've finally decided to weigh in, starting with this:
track & field is a true Olympic sport, with the Olympic Games as the biggest highlight for every athlete - and I'm pretty sure most athletes and fans would wanna keep it that way.
But with being a true Olympic sport come two big downsides:
1) you have limited say in who gets the TV rights for your sport (and NBC is arguably the worst possible place for this); and
2) the sport is run by federations that have a bureaucratic structure.
And while you can mitigate the effect of these two things, I believe you'll have to accept these two downsides, and instead focus on other things that you can improve upon.
Point is, there are plenty of things to improve, but deep changes to TV coverage or to governing bodies are not one of them.
TV ratings are the wrong metric to use to judge a sport's health, IMO. For one thing, we no longer live in the age of three TV channels, and folks today have a lot more entertainment opportunities than they did 50 years ago. I think a better measuring stick is the fiscal health of a sport, and any sport in which its athletes make an average salary of over $3 million, and it franchises continue to appreciate at an astronomical rate, is thriving.
TN1965 wrote:MLB is also falling behind NFL in opinion polls.
The NFL has been the most popular sport in America for a good number of years now. I've also read that college football has even surpassed MLB in popularity, but who said that baseball was #1? Surely your idea of success doesn't mean that every sport that isn't #1 is failing, is it? Wouldn't USATF love to trade places with MLB?
jazzcyclist wrote:TV ratings are the wrong metric to use to judge a sport's health, IMO. For one thing, we no longer live in the age of three TV channels, and folks today have a lot more entertainment opportunities than they did 50 years ago.
This does not explain why the tv ratings of World Series are falling far more rapidly than Super Bowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup finals, or many other sporting events. What other major sporting events have seen such a shape decline in ratiings during the same time span?
jazzcyclist wrote:I think a better measuring stick is the fiscal health of a sport, and any sport in which its athletes make an average salary of over $3 million, and it franchises continue to appreciate at an astronomical rate, is thriving.
By this standard, T&F is thriving, not declining. Ryan Hall is making far more money from his sport than Buddy Edelen did in his prime, isn't he?
jazzcyclist wrote:The NFL has been the most popular sport in America for a good number of years now. I've also read that college football has even surpassed MLB in popularity, but who said that baseball was #1? Surely your idea of success doesn't mean that every sport that isn't #1 is failing, is it? Wouldn't USATF love to trade places with MLB?
If you open the link above on the Harris Poll, and read the table, you will find this.
1985 NFL 24% MLB 23% 2010 NFL 31% MLB 17%
USATF probably would not want to see its popualrity rating cut by 1/4 like MLB.
If you visit some baseball message boards, you will find fans concerned about the declined popoularity (or relevance) of their game. There are also many "anti-baseball" people who frequent those places for the sole purpose of ridiculing baseball as a "geezer's game."
With T&F and baseball being my two favorite sports, I'm much more concerned about the future of T&F. To compare the health of the two is almost ludicrous. Baseball may have lost some steam to football but is still way more than healthy. T&F is already on life support as family and friends gather 'round to pay final respects . . .
bad hammy wrote:With T&F and baseball being my two favorite sports, I'm much more concerned about the future of T&F. To compare the health of the two is almost ludicrous. Baseball may have lost some steam to football but is still way more than healthy. T&F is already on life support as family and friends gather 'round to pay final respects . . .
I am not saying the two situations are comparable. My point is that traditional/modern dichotomy still applies to baseball, except that it is a team sport, which is a huge advantage.
T&F could thrive if it could exploit that aspect. USA-USSR dual meets used to be a big deal during the Cold War. But today, we cannot get average sports fans worked up for a dual meet against Jamaica. They are not the evil empire that USSR used to be.
TN1965 wrote: T&F could thrive if it could exploit that aspect. USA-USSR dual meets used to be a big deal during the Cold War. But today, we cannot get average sports fans worked up for a dual meet against Jamaica. They are not the evil empire that USSR used to be.
I know! The US vs the Taliban! Of course, their women's team would be pretty weak.
TN1965 wrote:This does not explain why the tv ratings of World Series are falling far more rapidly than Super Bowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup finals, or many other sporting events. What other major sporting events have seen such a shape decline in ratiings during the same time span?
Yeah, I'm sure baseball players and owners are really broken up about the TV ratings, and they're crying all the way to the bank.
TN1965 wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I think a better measuring stick is the fiscal health of a sport, and any sport in which its athletes make an average salary of over $3 million, and it franchises continue to appreciate at an astronomical rate, is thriving.
By this standard, T&F is thriving, not declining. Ryan Hall is making far more money from his sport than Buddy Edelen did in his prime, isn't he?
TN1965 wrote:If you open the link above on the Harris Poll, and read the table, you will find this.
1985 NFL 24% MLB 23% 2010 NFL 31% MLB 17%
USATF probably would not want to see its popualrity rating cut by 1/4 like MLB.
USATF would love to move from the #10 spot (2%) to the #2 spot (17%) and it would also love to have baseball's bottom line and you can take that to the bank.
I'm not sure that poll is that informative since it asks for your favourite sport. More interesting would be a poll that asks "which sports do you enjoy to watch?".
jazzcyclist wrote:Yeah, I'm sure baseball players and owners are really broken up about the TV ratings, and they're crying all the way to the bank.
So what is your explanation for the reason that baseball ratrings are declining more rapidly than other "major" sports? Do you have any?
And the top athletes in T&F are making more money today than in the past. True or false?
Okay, forget about Edelen. Is Hall making more money than Rodgers did in his prime? Salazar? And that comparison is not even fair, since Rodgers and Salazar won major marathons multiple times. They were far more accomplished runners than Hall ever will be. Hall is more comparable to Dick Beardsely or Ron Tabb. So is Hall making more money than Beardsley or Tabb?
Can you measure the financial "health" of sport by that standard?
Last edited by TN1965 on Fri May 25, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy wrote:I'm not sure that poll is that informative since it asks for your favourite sport. More interesting would be a poll that asks "which sports do you enjoy to watch?".
Obviously T+F is dying and has probably already died. Manual labor and moving feet is no longer a part of what people can relate to any more than axe-chopping tree stumps or arm wrestling. I'm an old school trackster but I have had hard time caring about or relating to US pro athletes or their competitions because they don't offer me anything more than beach volleyball. Yes, there is still interest in HS competition (I might drive up to Morgan State to see MD state meet tomorrow but I might just stay home and let the stopwatch and the tape measure do the cheering for my favorite team). The devolution of T+F isn't sad or conspired, or fixable with slick media or product targeting. If anything, the life support of T+F by US TV networks has been charitably extended (which might explain the worthless terrible unimaginable unwatchable coverage). A world series baseball batter facing an 0-2 pitch in the ninth is ten times more compelling to a media audience than a professional T+F sprinter running his or her game against nothing but wind. Change to metric only speeded the decline. I hope all the historic T+F marks survive the sagebrush ghost town dust.
bad hammy wrote:With T&F and baseball being my two favorite sports, I'm much more concerned about the future of T&F. To compare the health of the two is almost ludicrous. Baseball may have lost some steam to football but is still way more than healthy. T&F is already on life support as family and friends gather 'round to pay final respects . . .
I couldn't said it better myself, but amazingly there are people on this board who think its reasonable to mention to T&F abd baseball in the same breath. Here are some stats that should give us a little perspective. In 1970, the average MLB player made $29,303. In 1985, when Carl Lewis was at the height of his powers, the average was $371,571. In 1995 when Michael Johnson was dominiating, it was $1071,029 and in 2010, it was $3,340,133. Have average track and field incomes appreciated at the same rate as baseball salaries?
One of the best ways to encourage people to follow track would be to score all the events and award national team championship with presentation and pomp at the end of the olympic meet. That 1st , 2nd, and 3rd team place will give a whole new meaning and thinking about track and field at the Olympics. The idea is cheap to impliment...but it has to potential to grasp the imagination of the mainstream population in the significant US TV market. It would be a hit
The Meet wrote:One of the best ways to encourage people to follow track would be to score all the events and award national team championship with presentation and pomp at the end of the olympic meet. That 1st , 2nd, and 3rd team place will give a whole new meaning and thinking about track and field at the Olympics. The idea is cheap to impliment...but it has to potential to grasp the imagination of the mainstream population in the significant US TV market. It would be a hit
And the reason that will never happen is because there are only about 10 nations that would vote for that and 180 against it.
jazzcyclist wrote:Here are some stats that should give us a little perspective. In 1970, the average MLB player made $29,303. In 1985, when Carl Lewis was at the height of his powers, the average was $371,571. In 1995 when Michael Johnson was dominiating, it was $1071,029 and in 2010, it was $3,340,133. Have average track and field incomes appreciated at the same rate as baseball salaries?
The answer is "yes" as far as the top athletes are concerned. Nike is paying Walter Dix about $1M/yr, which is 10 times what they used to pay Carl Lewis back in 1980s as "base salary." (Lewis "Inside Track") Lewis also earned performance-based bonus. But he was a far more accomplished athelete than Dix. He was more comparable to Bolt, who gets far more from Puma, in addition to other sponsors.
In 1981, Nike offered $50K/yr contract to the reigning NYC Marathon champion Alberto Salazar. (Salazar "14 minutes") Ryan Hall gets 10 times more from ASICS, in addition to what he gets from other sponsors like Nissan and Vizio. Salazar ended up earning about $250K in that year, after breaking the WR in NYC Marathon. But how much Hall would earn if he brokle the WR in one of the World Marathon Majors? Well over $1M in total to say the least.
The difference should be even bigger among women. Allyson Felix's Nike contract is supposed to be in the same range as Dix's. I cannot imagine Valerie Brisco Hooks or even Evelyn Ashford earning anything close to what Lewis earned in 1980s.
Of course, a 5th place in Steeples at US Nationals does not earn much today. But I bet it earned even less back in 1980s.
So the income for T&F atheletes has increased quite rapidly in the last few decades. Does that mean T&F is "thriving"? I don't think so...
kuha wrote:the idea that a small handful of athletes can make a living in NO WAY compensates for all that has been lost since 1960. By that measure, if a single athlete--let's call him Usain Bolt--made a billion dollars this year for running a single race (and everyone else got zip, of course), that would be a wonderful sign of the sport's economic health. I think not.
As stated on page 1 by this particular knucklehead, the absolute wealth of a few has nothing whatever to do with the overall health of the discipline as a whole. As the quoted post notes, in total dollars it would be "wonderful" if one athlete made a billion dollars for one race. However, can anyone pretend that this would represent a healthy sport? In fact, the narrower the top of the economic pyramid gets, the less relevant "the sport" as a whole is.
TN1965, you didn't answer my question, you answered your own question. Here's my question once more: "Have AVERAGE track and field incomes appreciated at the same rate as baseball salaries?"
Furthermore, the real numbers regarding top salaries would probably undermine your argument also. In 1979, Nolan Ryan became the first player to make $1 million. Today, the top player makes $30 million. Does Usain Bolt make 30 times what Carl Lewis make? Unfortunately, all we can do is specualte, because track and field salaries aren't a matter of public record. However, I doubt very seriously that Walter Dix makes a base salary of $1 million, and I aslo doubt that Carl Lewis only made $100,000 in his heyday.
kuha wrote:the idea that a small handful of athletes can make a living in NO WAY compensates for all that has been lost since 1960. By that measure, if a single athlete--let's call him Usain Bolt--made a billion dollars this year for running a single race (and everyone else got zip, of course), that would be a wonderful sign of the sport's economic health. I think not.
I disagree to some extent. Bolt making a lot of money DOES benefit other sprinters and the sport.
Event organizers have an incentive to have a competitive race, and to achieve that they need to pay at least reasonable money to other sprinters. Youth sprinters see how much money it is at least possible to make, so they have an incentive to stay in the sport. Journalists covering Bolt bring more exposure to the sport, which is good. Bolt has a coach who gets some of his money. Bolt has training partners who profit. And so on.
Point is, this is NOT a zero-sum game in which Bolt would take money away from other track athletes. To the contrary, this is a win-win situation, with Bolt getting money that would otherwise not be in the sport of track & field.
j-a-m wrote:[.... Point is, this is NOT a zero-sum game in which Bolt would take money away from other track athletes. To the contrary, this is a win-win situation, with Bolt getting money that would otherwise not be in the sport of track & field.
Sorry, but you apparently don't understand the economic model on which the sport operates. Other than the Bolts of the world, everybody else makes their living off appearance money as much as anything else, and meets have a finite budget. Every penny that a Bolt gets for running in a meet is a penny that will not go to somebody else. It's very much a zero-sum game in that regard.
j-a-m wrote:[.... Point is, this is NOT a zero-sum game in which Bolt would take money away from other track athletes. To the contrary, this is a win-win situation, with Bolt getting money that would otherwise not be in the sport of track & field.
Sorry, but you apparently don't understand the economic model on which the sport operates. Other than the Bolts of the world, everybody else makes their living off appearance money as much as anything else, and meets have a finite budget. Every penny that a Bolt gets for running in a meet is a penny that will not go to somebody else. It's very much a zero-sum game in that regard.
I was talking primarily about sponsorships. If Puma didn't pay that money to Bolt, they may pay it to some basketball player, or some Argentinian soccer player, or do something entirely outside of sports.
j-a-m wrote:[Event organizers have an incentive to have a competitive race, and to achieve that they need to pay at least reasonable money to other sprinters.
gh has already responded and I completely agree.
You begin with a flawed premise (above). When "the sport" is re-packaged into a showcase for a few celebrities, "a competitive race" means less and less. It becomes more about opportunities to see the great and wonderful star, with the also-rans fading into obscurity.
If you want the healthiest & broadest competition, then either pay nothing or pay according to some moderate range. In many of the ways that really matter, as gh said, this IS a zero-sum game.
j-a-m wrote:[Event organizers have an incentive to have a competitive race, and to achieve that they need to pay at least reasonable money to other sprinters.
gh has already responded and I completely agree.
You begin with a flawed premise (above). When "the sport" is re-packaged into a showcase for a few celebrities, "a competitive race" means less and less. It becomes more about opportunities to see the great and wonderful star, with the also-rans fading into obscurity.
If you want the healthiest & broadest competition, then either pay nothing or pay according to some moderate range. In many of the ways that really matter, as gh said, this IS a zero-sum game.
Good point; I take back the part about incentives for event organizers. And I agree in that I prefer competitive events, and don't want to be entertained by celebrities being showcased.
jazzcyclist wrote:..."Have AVERAGE track and field incomes appreciated at the same rate as baseball salaries?"
Furthermore, the real numbers regarding top salaries would probably undermine your argument also. In 1979, Nolan Ryan became the first player to make $1 million. Today, the top player makes $30 million. Does Usain Bolt make 30 times what Carl Lewis make? Unfortunately, all we can do is specualte, because track and field salaries aren't a matter of public record. However, I doubt very seriously that Walter Dix makes a base salary of $1 million, and I aslo doubt that Carl Lewis only made $100,000 in his heyday.
First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the "average" track & field income. Who should be counted? I earned a $50 savings bond by winning a local 10K race two years ago. Should I be included as a "professional" runner?
Second, if you take 1979 as the staring point, yes, the difference is probably more than 30 fold. Lewis was, of course, still a college freshman in 1979. But even the top post collegiate athelte back then probably earned very little. The first contract Lewis got in 1981 was $5K/yr. (You could see a photo of this contract in his book.) It went up to $50K/yr shortly after, and to $100K/yr until 1987 when Nike terminated his contract and settled out of court. The bonus for winning the Olympic Gold was $40K each.
TN1965 wrote:First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the "average" track & field income. Who should be counted? I earned a $50 savings bond by winning a local 10K race two years ago. Should I be included as a "professional" runner?
Second, if you take 1979 as the staring point, yes, the difference is probably more than 30 fold. Lewis was, of course, still a college freshman in 1979. But even the top post collegiate athelte back then probably earned very little. The first contract Lewis got in 1981 was $5K/yr. (You could see a photo of this contract in his book.) It went up to $50K/yr shortly after, and to $100K/yr until 1987 when Nike terminated his contract and settled out of court. The bonus for winning the Olympic Gold was $40K each.
(to be continued...)
You're doing a helluva lot of parsing and qualifying to avoid answering a straight-forward question.
- Carmelita Jeter and Dawn Harper are barely recognizable. Not used to seeing either look like that. - I don't know if it's going to help the sport in the United States, but NBC's focus will probably be on Allyson Felix. She's going to be the American track athlete in the spotlight by NBC during the games. If she wins individual gold in London and says that she's coming back for Rio 2016, USATF needs to capitalize on her success from London. The sport needs a recognizable face in the US, like Michael Phelps is for swimming. I think it could be Felix. She has a marketable look. She only needs one individual gold medal. Having said that though, I have my doubts that USATF will even market Felix if she wins individual gold in London and decides to return for Rio 2016.
Talk about fan un-friendly. They should've DQ'd the whole heat under the honest effort rule. Amazing, 12 guys and not one decided to push it when they hit the quarter in 70? I understand tactics, qualifying, etc. but the casual fans who find the meet on ESPN3 won't stay for long unless they see an actual race, and they have no understanding why the supposed best athletes in the country are jogging for three laps. Another one to file under the "meet presentation" category. And for all the baseball comparisons, note that there are no tactical games with ninth inning kicks in the college world series.
Talk about fan un-friendly. They should've DQ'd the whole heat under the honest effort rule. Amazing, 12 guys and not one decided to push it when they hit the quarter in 70? I understand tactics, qualifying, etc. but the casual fans who find the meet on ESPN3 won't stay for long unless they see an actual race, and they have no understanding why the supposed best athletes in the country are jogging for three laps. Another one to file under the "meet presentation" category. And for all the baseball comparisons, note that there are no tactical games with ninth inning kicks in the college world series.
The two regional prelims is a farce.. there was no competition in the horizontal jumps in the 16 person "final" except for number 16 thru 13 try to bump the 12th place...mass passes 12 thru 1 in rounds 4, 5 and 6.
Last edited by lonewolf on Mon May 28, 2012 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lonewolf wrote:The two regional prelims is a farce.. there was no competition in the horizontal jumps in the 16 person "final" except for number 16 thru 13 try to bump the 12th place...mass passes 12 thru 1.
100% agreed. What's the point of a meet where 12th is as good as 1st?
hc10003 wrote:If T&F is dying, here's one reason. One week a guy sets the ACR; next week, the fans get to see him win a race in a time that couldn't win some HS state meets. http://www.flashresults.com/2012_Meets/ ... lts5-1.htm
Talk about fan un-friendly. They should've DQ'd the whole heat under the honest effort rule. Amazing, 12 guys and not one decided to push it when they hit the quarter in 70? I understand tactics, qualifying, etc. but the casual fans who find the meet on ESPN3 won't stay for long unless they see an actual race, and they have no understanding why the supposed best athletes in the country are jogging for three laps. Another one to file under the "meet presentation" category. And for all the baseball comparisons, note that there are no tactical games with ninth inning kicks in the college world series.
There is not a high school kid in the country that would be within shouting distance in that race (well, maybe one, but I do not think he closes very fast); the guy that got third in the heat ran 52.25. I guess you do not understand the purposes of a race. The race is a 'race', not a time trial, get over it. Acceptance by average Americans is not affected by this at all, it only comes from a subset of fans that think that times are the true measure of the athlete (to the exclusion of all others, for a subset).
