OrangeWhoopass.com Forums

General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: Arky Vaughan on February 04, 2009, 10:44:59 pm

Title: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Arky Vaughan on February 04, 2009, 10:44:59 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123328241772832043.html
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: jonbloozy on February 04, 2009, 10:57:23 pm
Noe, what is the WNBA?
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 05, 2009, 06:41:10 am
I suspect the NFL will be the most "recession proof", because a lot of its audience is based on gambling, and gambling (and drinking) typically increase during downturns in the economy.

MLB has more flexibility because of its long season and its ticket prices are already much cheaper per game as a result.  Plus, it's a summer sport and that's when the kids are off school.

The NBA though, is a winter sport with high ticket prices and the least "tradition" of the majors.  I think it'll have the hardest time.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Tralfaz on February 05, 2009, 08:59:58 am
Not to mention, few care about the NBA until the play-offs start.  Like the movie industry, which is not suffering at the ticket box from the current economic situation, pro sports are seen by many Americans as an escape.  Interesting about the increasing quality of the home viewing experience though. 
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Fredia on February 05, 2009, 09:20:46 am
but you know no matter how much you love the astros and watch games fithgully at home.. its not the same excpericne as seeing it in person..
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: JackAstro on February 05, 2009, 09:23:26 am
Quote
The question is, were these failures part of a normal, recessionary, thinning of the herd?

Yes.

Quote
Or were they the early warning signs of a pro-sports bubble that may be about to burst?

No.

Look at all the pesky reading I just avoided! Thanks, WSJ, for putting the quiz at the beginning of the material.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: hostros7 on February 05, 2009, 10:26:14 am
This issue highlights why I don't really understand the grocer's whole stance on the payroll right now.  I see it in two ways. First, if he has serious liquidity issues and this is a serious "batten down the hatches and weather the storm" situation, then I understand the current view on the payroll cap. 

However, if he/the organization currently have liquidity the payroll makes no sense.  The way I see the current economic environment is that the companies with adequate liquidity and strong balance sheets are going to come away from the recessionary environment as big winners.  They be defined as such because they are going to be able to acquire attractive assets at signficantly depressed valuations.  You are seeing the exact same thing in the free agent market currently.  If the Astros could acquire players like a Wolf, Sheets, Garland, Wigginton etc. at basement bottom prices, the economic benefits just makes obvious sense if they had the cash.  If the economy doesn't turn, and the Astros are losing you will be hearing crickets in that stadium.  People aren't going to shell out the same cash just to sit and watch a loser on a given night--those Friday, Saturday, Sunday casual fans ("why isn't bagwell playing first base?") in particular.  Economy be damned, it would be packed in a hot pennant race in the late summer months, and I'd think you'd see a nice return on those relatively cheap investments (FA signings).

I'm not saying Drayton is cheap at all.  I just don't think the organization is capitalizing on a buyers market that could position the franchise for a couple winning seasons and generate the organization some nice returns on their investments back into the franchise. 
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Lurch on February 05, 2009, 11:24:16 am
This issue highlights why I don't really understand the grocer's whole stance on the payroll right now.  I see it in two ways. First, if he has serious liquidity issues and this is a serious "batten down the hatches and weather the storm" situation, then I understand the current view on the payroll cap. 

However, if he/the organization currently have liquidity the payroll makes no sense.  The way I see the current economic environment is that the companies with adequate liquidity and strong balance sheets are going to come away from the recessionary environment as big winners.  They be defined as such because they are going to be able to acquire attractive assets at signficantly depressed valuations.  You are seeing the exact same thing in the free agent market currently.  If the Astros could acquire players like a Wolf, Sheets, Garland, Wigginton etc. at basement bottom prices, the economic benefits just makes obvious sense if they had the cash.  If the economy doesn't turn, and the Astros are losing you will be hearing crickets in that stadium.  People aren't going to shell out the same cash just to sit and watch a loser on a given night--those Friday, Saturday, Sunday casual fans ("why isn't bagwell playing first base?") in particular.  Economy be damned, it would be packed in a hot pennant race in the late summer months, and I'd think you'd see a nice return on those relatively cheap investments (FA signings).

I'm not saying Drayton is cheap at all.  I just don't think the organization is capitalizing on a buyers market that could position the franchise for a couple winning seasons and generate the organization some nice returns on their investments back into the franchise. 

HE'S SPENDING $110MM IN A PLUMMETING ECONOMY WHICH IS A 10% INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR.  WHAT THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO?!

(In caps to accomodate Chron blog readership)
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 05, 2009, 11:26:33 am
Not to mention, few care about the NBA until the play-offs start. 

The regular season is rendered mostly pointless by the massive post-season.  Plus there's lots of young franchises, older franchises in new cities, and franchises in marginal cities.  I won't be surprised to see an NBA franchise fold.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Lurch on February 05, 2009, 11:28:37 am
The regular season is rendered mostly pointless by the massive post-season.  Plus there's lots of young franchises, older franchises in new cities, and franchises in marginal cities.  I won't be surprised to see an NBA franchise fold.

Not that anyone cares, but I loved the NBA until I moved to Austin and discovered I was not allowed to watch the Rockets in SA's territory.  Fuck the NBA.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: UpTooLate on February 05, 2009, 12:09:21 pm
but you know no matter how much you love the astros and watch games fithgully at home.. its not the same excpericne as seeing it in person..

No it's not.  Games are fun to attend and I try to get in at least about 3-5 games a season.  However, I rather enjoy having the multiple views, closeups, and replays that television offers.  Having great commentators is a huge bonus.

Were it not for the ha$$le$ of parking, ticket price$, beverage price$, etc., I would probably attend more games.  I totally agree that if the economy continues to tank and the Astros are having a crap season, you'll be hearing crickets at the game.  The biggest indicator will be if major sponsors begin to disappear from signage and promotions.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 05, 2009, 12:46:35 pm
No it's not.  Games are fun to attend and I try to get in at least about 3-5 games a season.  However, I rather enjoy having the multiple views, closeups, and replays that television offers.  Having great commentators is a huge bonus.

Were it not for the ha$$le$ of parking, ticket price$, beverage price$, etc., I would probably attend more games.  I totally agree that if the economy continues to tank and the Astros are having a crap season, you'll be hearing crickets at the game.  The biggest indicator will be if major sponsors begin to disappear from signage and promotions.

On the flip side, with fewer people attending the parking will be easier and I suspect they'll be forced to drop the ticket and conce$$ion prices.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Andyzipp on February 06, 2009, 08:38:53 am
On the flip side, with fewer people attending the parking will be easier and I suspect they'll be forced to drop the ticket and conce$$ion prices.

Not officially, but you'll have more Dollar Hot Dog nights and the like.

Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Astroholic on February 06, 2009, 09:11:34 am
but you know no matter how much you love the astros and watch games fithgully at home.. its not the same excpericne as seeing it in person..

what the hell is a fithgully?  Am I missing a new word or is the something you made up/misspelled?
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: austro on February 06, 2009, 09:16:51 am
what the hell is a fithgully?  Am I missing a new word or is the something you made up/misspelled?

I think it's a misspelling of "faithfully". I used to think that Fredia would spell better as she got more excpericne, but I was wrong.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 09:39:17 am
I think it's a misspelling of "faithfully". I used to think that Fredia would spell better as she got more excpericne, but I was wrong.

Wrongo.  "Fithgully" is a fielding position in cricket, to the side of the slips, in front of third man and opposite silly mid-off.  Near cover point.  Facing square leg.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Astroholic on February 06, 2009, 09:44:57 am
Wrongo.  "Fithgully" is a fielding position in cricket, to the side of the slips, in front of third man and opposite silly mid-off.  Near cover point.  Facing square leg.

Figures.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: GreatBagwellsBeard on February 06, 2009, 09:49:15 am
I thought she was talking about economics and how in these tough times Drayton is having to be fithgully responsible.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Astroholic on February 06, 2009, 09:56:01 am
I thought she was talking about economics and how in these tough times Drayton is having to be fithgully responsible.

I like it and will use it often as in: "I have a fithgully of a hangover".   "That there is a fithgully of a burger."
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: VirtualBob on February 06, 2009, 09:58:20 am
what the hell is a fithgully?  Am I missing a new word or is the something you made up/misspelled?
2348 posts and a member for over 4 years and you still can't read Fredia-ese??  For shame!
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Ty in Tampa on February 06, 2009, 09:58:39 am
Wrongo.  "Fithgully" is a fielding position in cricket, to the side of the slips, in front of third man and opposite silly mid-off.  Near cover point.  Facing square leg.

Me talk pretty one day.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: VirtualBob on February 06, 2009, 10:00:36 am
Wrongo.  "Fithgully" is a fielding position in cricket, to the side of the slips, in front of third man and opposite silly mid-off.  Near cover point.  Facing square leg.
The great thing about being a cricket expert is that you can make stuff like this up all day long and nobody will notice.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: VirtualBob on February 06, 2009, 10:03:41 am
I thought she was talking about economics and how in these tough times Drayton is having to be fithgully responsible.
That would hvae been "fithgully rethponthibull"
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 10:03:58 am
The great thing about being a cricket expert is that you can make stuff like this up all day long and nobody will notice.

You haven't so far...
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: VirtualBob on February 06, 2009, 10:23:43 am
You haven't so far...
I guess I'm not an expert, then. 
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 10:27:21 am
I guess I'm not an expert, then. 

Cricket experts are actually called "frnerfgladders".
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Gizzmonic on February 06, 2009, 11:17:44 am
Cricket experts are actually called "frnerfgladders".

Wait, is this Welsh or Frediaese?
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Guinness on February 06, 2009, 11:23:48 am
Wait, is this Welsh or Frediaese?
I used to go to cricket matches at Lords with an ex-British Army major (Retired).  We always sat in the frnerfgladders section.  He told me that frnerfgladders was rhyming slang for 'mad hatters'.  Or maybe it was the other way around.  Maybe we were drunk.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 11:26:23 am
I used to go to cricket matches at Lords with an ex-British Army major (Retired).  We always sat in the frnerfgladders section.  He told me that frnerfgladders was rhyming slang for 'mad hatters'.  Or maybe it was the other way around.  Maybe we were drunk.

Rowley Birkin? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiGJBHVadA)
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Guinness on February 06, 2009, 11:28:49 am
The Major was from Yorkshire, so he's about as intelligible.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 11:48:19 am
The Major was from Yorkshire, so he's about as intelligible.

Yorkshiremen believe that cricketing ability begins and ends at Yorkshire's borders, and that God seeks advice from Geoff Boycott (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnpUOFFhKKI&feature=related).
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: chuck on February 06, 2009, 12:13:03 pm
No it's not.  Games are fun to attend and I try to get in at least about 3-5 games a season.  However, I rather enjoy having the multiple views, closeups, and replays that television offers.  Having great commentators is a huge bonus.

Reading people respond in a cogent way to Fredia reminds me of listening to Hank Hill calmly reply to Boomhauer's incoherent mumblings.

I couldn't help but notice that the article pointed several times to declining television ratings. Mine is a quixotic hope, surely, but wouldn't it be great if the ESPNization of sports were finally fatiguing viewers who are simply interested in a Brownie-JD sort of experience rather than a HERE'S MY TAKE BOO-YAH!!!!!!! sort of bullshit?

Edited because I got so hyped up at the BOO-YAH!!! and the FRESH TAKE that I had a palsied fit and hit Post in my ecstatic convulsions.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 01:05:13 pm
Reading people respond in a cogent way to Fredia reminds me of listening to Hank Hill calmly reply to Boomhauer's incoherent mumblings.

I couldn't help but notice that the article pointed several times to declining television ratings. Mine is a quixotic hope, surely, but wouldn't it be great if the ESPNization of sports were finally fatiguing viewers who are simply interested in a Brownie-JD sort of experience rather than a HERE'S MY TAKE BOO-YAH!!!!!!! sort of bullshit?

Edited because I got so hyped up at the BOO-YAH!!! and the FRESH TAKE that I had a palsied fit and hit Post in my ecstatic convulsions.

Proof (http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fail-owned-baby-name-fail.jpg) that ESPN has gone too far.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: homer on February 06, 2009, 01:08:34 pm
Proof (http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fail-owned-baby-name-fail.jpg) that ESPN has gone too far.

I don't know what good can come from me posting this but...

Palin said she named Bristol in part for Bristol, Conn. — home of the sports network ESPN.

“When I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster,” she said. “Until I learned that you’d have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.”


http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1416219,sarah-palin-trig-bristol-020509.article
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: austro on February 06, 2009, 01:15:59 pm
I don't know what good can come from me posting this but...

Palin said she named Bristol in part for Bristol, Conn. — home of the sports network ESPN.

“When I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster,” she said. “Until I learned that you’d have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.”


http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1416219,sarah-palin-trig-bristol-020509.article

JackAstro, get to work on this one.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Guinness on February 06, 2009, 01:16:30 pm
I don't know what good can come from me posting this but...
Why not go ahead and post some links about the stimulus, pot, and health care?  
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Craig on February 06, 2009, 01:20:45 pm
I don't know what good can come from me posting this but...

Palin said she named Bristol in part for Bristol, Conn. — home of the sports network ESPN.

“When I was in high school, my desire was to be a sportscaster,” she said. “Until I learned that you’d have to move to Bristol, Connecticut. It was far away. So instead, I had a daughter and named her Bristol.”


http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1416219,sarah-palin-trig-bristol-020509.article

"OK Mrs. Palin, push ... push ... nice, the baby's starting to crown ... and ... WHOOOOP!!!! DOINK!!! IT'S A FUMBLE! The nurse scoops it up and she COULD ... GO ... ALL ...."
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 06, 2009, 02:15:53 pm
"OK Mrs. Palin, push ... push ... nice, the baby's starting to crown ... and ... WHOOOOP!!!! DOINK!!! IT'S A FUMBLE! The nurse scoops it up and she COULD ... GO ... ALL ...."

For some reason, I am reminded of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaGLZEdYDGU&feature=related).
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: HurricaneDavid on February 08, 2009, 12:06:25 am
I suspect the NFL will be the most "recession proof", because a lot of its audience is based on gambling, and gambling (and drinking) typically increase during downturns in the economy.

OK, but how do gambling dollars go back to the league?
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Bench on February 08, 2009, 11:06:44 am
OK, but how do gambling dollars go back to the league?

TV deals.
Title: Re: Are Pro Sports Too Big to Fail?
Post by: Limey on February 08, 2009, 12:32:21 pm
OK, but how do gambling dollars go back to the league?

What Bench said.

The reason people watch to the end of blowout shit games between crap teams in other parts of the country is because they've bet the spread and/or the over/under.  Football, and therefore its sponsors and advertisers, have a captive audience as a result.