View single post by srossi
 Posted: Tue Jun 25th, 2019 03:17 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
srossi

 

Joined: Sun Oct 14th, 2007
Location: New York USA
Posts: 52778
Status: 
Offline
beejmi wrote: I think this will actually eventually happen and become a trend of sorts
I don't see it.  On the one hand, for baseball anyway, going from 81 home games to 40 would probably be a good thing because one game is fairly meaningless over the course of a season and way too expensive these days.  It's impossible to justify spending $200 for a family of 4 to see a Royals-White Sox game in June just for the hell of it.  20 years ago, and certainly when I was a kid 35 years ago, you could just make a last minute decision to go to the ballpark on a nice summer evening just for the experience, but even at Yankee Stadium you could still pick up bleacher seats for a few bucks.  Now, it's such a huge time and monetary commitment and hassle.  So scarcity is important and reducing the number of home games to make each one feel at least slightly more special would be helpful.  Shit games still won't draw though.

However, you run into all kids of brand dilution issues, losing loyalty, fans feeling the team isn't "theirs", and just leading to less interest in the product than ever before.  There's also the logistical nightmares.  Splitting home games vs. good teams and bad teams equally so that both cities get an equal chance at the same gates and both fanbases get to see the same quality of games.  Which city hosts the Wild Card Game, and how do they split longer playoff series?  The players themselves will have no fixed home and do more traveling than ever before, so I imagine the union would step in.  It would be a mess leading to neither city being happy with the profits and none of the fans caring about the teams.     

  

Last edited on Tue Jun 25th, 2019 03:19 pm by srossi



____________________
This thread was great before AA ruined it.