George Steinbrenner we hardly knew ye.... [Archive]

JonInMiddleGA

07-13-2010, 09:03 AM

as much as you loved to root against him, it is hard to deny his impact on the sport.

Even more than his impact, the thing that saddens me about his death as far as baseball/sports is concerned is that he was a guy that you knew wanted to win. Not because it'd be good for his investment, not because it'd sell more t-shirts, but because he believed that was the object of the game.

Can't say that about a lot of owners today.

lungs

07-13-2010, 09:09 AM

Tip my cap today to the Steinbrenners.

CraigSca

07-13-2010, 09:19 AM

It's amazing how he changed over the years. I can remember when he was hated as much by Yankee fans as the rest of the population.

Mizzou B-ball fan

07-13-2010, 09:35 AM

Even more than his impact, the thing that saddens me about his death as far as baseball/sports is concerned is that he was a guy that you knew wanted to win. Not because it'd be good for his investment, not because it'd sell more t-shirts, but because he believed that was the object of the game.

Can't say that about a lot of owners today.

This illustrates quite clearly just how screwed up baseball has become at this point, mostly due to the fallacy that an owner should be win at all costs despite the obvious disparity in payroll and market revenues and no leveling mechanism. George and his actions are the reason that baseball is the least competitive league in professional sports. He definitely had an impact on the sport, but it was mostly negative.

Lathum

07-13-2010, 09:41 AM

This illustrates quite clearly just how screwed up baseball has become at this point, mostly due to the fallacy that an owner should be win at all costs despite the obvious disparity in payroll and market revenues and no leveling mechanism. George and his actions are the reason that baseball is the least competitive league in professional sports. He definitely had an impact on the sport, but it was mostly negative.

As much as I hate the Yankees and the way they spend they operate within the rules of the game. Don't hate Steinbrenner for that or blame him, blame baseball, maybe you should blame Curt Flood.

He wanted to win and was willing to spend to do it. I get the feeling that even if he was in a small market he would spend the same money and risk losing money just to win.

first Sheppard now George, Yogi better watch out.

cartman

07-13-2010, 09:44 AM

Why is it that capitalism is considered good for business, except when sports related businesses come into play?

PilotMan

07-13-2010, 09:45 AM

As much as I hate the Yankees, I see the bigger picture here. The passing of an icon is a time for reflection and remembering all that he accomplished, and all that surrounded him. RIP George.

Mizzou B-ball fan

07-13-2010, 09:47 AM

As much as I hate the Yankees and the way they spend they operate within the rules of the game. Don't hate Steinbrenner for that or blame him, blame baseball, maybe you should blame Curt Flood.

He wanted to win and was willing to spend to do it. I get the feeling that even if he was in a small market he would spend the same money and risk losing money just to win.

first Sheppard now George, Yogi better watch out.

Any owner in baseball can and would have done the same thing as George in that market and then they would have been lauded as the 'guy who wanted to win as much as the fans'. It's easy to take 'risks' when you're in the largest market in baseball. What's tough is to do what's best for the game and even the playing field. That would have been a far bigger risk than anything that George did. Instead, he made millions upon millions with all his 'risks'.

Lathum

07-13-2010, 09:49 AM

Any owner in baseball can and would have done the same thing as George in that market and then they would have been lauded as the 'guy who wanted to win as much as the fans'. It's easy to take 'risks' when you're in the largest market in baseball. What's tough is to do what's best for the game and even the playing field. That would have been a far bigger risk than anything that George did. Instead, he made millions upon millions with all his 'risks'.

Why on Earth wouldn't he?

Make millions and win titles or make sure the playing field is level, hmmmm?

Don't be sore because your team plays in a small market and pockets revenue sharing money instead of spending to win.

JonInMiddleGA

07-13-2010, 09:50 AM

What's tough is to do what's best for the game and even the playing field.

That's not his job as an owner, his job is or at least should be, to field a winning team.

He was one the last owners I've seen who looked at winning at the object, not getting rich, the latter always seemed to be a by-product for him where baseball was concerned.

As one of the AJC writers put it this morning, "he was the owner every fan wants".

Ronnie Dobbs2

07-13-2010, 09:53 AM

Could not agree with Jon any more. And the Yankees he bought were not the Yankees of today. He made that. I suppose you could argue that it's easier to do that in New York, but he still did it. Others have similar situations and flounder, he excelled. Baseball will miss him.

MikeVic

07-13-2010, 09:54 AM

R.I.P. I'll echo the other thoughts in that it's nice to see an owner that just wants to win.

Mizzou B-ball fan

07-13-2010, 09:54 AM

That's not his job as an owner, his job is or at least should be, to field a winning team.

He was one the last owners I've seen who looked at winning at the object, not getting rich, the latter always seemed to be a by-product for him where baseball was concerned.

As one of the AJC writers put it this morning, "he was the owner every fan wants".

You can be an owner and still look out for the best interests of the league while still pushing your team to win at all costs. It can be both.

It's not hard to be 'the owner every fan wants' when you have a clear financial advantage over the other teams. He has every right to be a leader in the way he did. It just wasn't in the best interest of baseball as a sport.

Lathum

07-13-2010, 09:56 AM

You can be an owner and still look out for the best interests of the league while still pushing your team to win at all costs. It can be both.

It's not hard to be 'the owner every fan wants' when you have a clear financial advantage over the other teams. He has every right to be a leader in the way he did. It just wasn't in the best interest of baseball as a sport.

And again, it should be up to baseball to change the rules in that case. Don't be mad at George for operating within the framework.

cartman

07-13-2010, 10:09 AM

The Yankees, by far, contributed the most in revenue sharing, due to their higher revenues. It is not the Yankees fault that many of the recipients of revenue sharing (namely the Pirates, Royals, and Padres) elected to pocket the money instead of using it for payroll to make their teams more competitive.

Ronnie Dobbs2

07-13-2010, 10:10 AM

Anyway, rest in peace George and keep fucking that chicken MBBF.

molson

07-13-2010, 10:20 AM

You can be an owner and still look out for the best interests of the league while still pushing your team to win at all costs. It can be both.

It's not hard to be 'the owner every fan wants' when you have a clear financial advantage over the other teams. He has every right to be a leader in the way he did. It just wasn't in the best interest of baseball as a sport.

What do you think he should have done? Give away players to the Royals and then pay their salaries? If he didn't sign some big free agent, the Red Sox or the Cubs or the Dodgers would have. ( Not the Royals.)

Dr. Sak

07-13-2010, 10:22 AM

And again, it should be up to baseball to change the rules in that case. Don't be mad at George for operating within the framework.

I agree 100%. RIP George

molson

07-13-2010, 10:22 AM

George and his actions are the reason that baseball is the least competitive league in professional sports.

This is an amazing assertion.

It was all George, huh? He made New York a huge market and created the player's union?

RendeR

07-13-2010, 10:25 AM

I think the biggest argument against him is that when times came up where the owners (who MAKE the rules BTW) could have balanced the playing fields and done more to improve the game itself and return to the apex of American (and World Wide) sports, Steinbrenner was the leader of the "things are fine as they are" camp.

He was GREAT for the Yankees. He was worthless to baseball as a whole.

He was definitely an Icon within the sport, but I have no great feeling of loss at his demise. The Yankees might suffer some in the future, but perhaps the sport as a whole will grow and become more without him.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 10:28 AM

This is an amazing assertion.

It was all George, huh? He made New York a huge market and created the player's union?

George created the "buy the best players" mentality to win at all costs. Thereby driving their biggest rivals over the decades to do the same, which in turn creates a huge disparity between the large and small market teams.

He might not be solely responsible for the piss poor product we have today, but he definitely lead the way to it.

Chubby

07-13-2010, 10:28 AM

stevew

07-13-2010, 10:30 AM

for the most part the Yankees don't drive spending. Be mad at Tom Hicks, he is more responsible than George. Jeter was one of the contracts that did blow up the marketplace. But when you're retaining a home grown talent it is acceptable. Re Teixera and CC....those guys got market.

molson

07-13-2010, 10:31 AM

I think the biggest argument against him is that when times came up where the owners (who MAKE the rules BTW) could have balanced the playing fields and done more to improve the game itself and return to the apex of American (and World Wide) sports, Steinbrenner was the leader of the "things are fine as they are" camp.

I'm always perplexed by this argument. We've had multiple strikes/lockouts over salary distribution issues. What the hell was the '94 strike all about if the owners and players agreed that there shouldn't be a salary cap?

The players won't go for it. They won't play under those rules.

JonInMiddleGA

07-13-2010, 10:31 AM

When I think about it, George was one of the last vestiges of American greatness. He wanted to win, he'll be criticized. LeBron wants to win, he's villified by some.

Steinbrenner never accepted mediocrity, whereas too many Americans today seem to crave it.

Logan

07-13-2010, 10:33 AM

Jesus christ MBBF needs to be smacked.

How much of George's money has ended up DIRECTLY in your owner's pocket?

ISiddiqui

07-13-2010, 10:34 AM

Logan

07-13-2010, 10:36 AM

Truth. It was great to see an owner want to win, but without a counterbalance (such as a strong Commissioner) his excesses were unable to be checked.

And if those counterbalances were in place, he would have put about an extra $100 million in his bank account annually.

What a prick.

molson

07-13-2010, 10:36 AM

Only in MLB could someone be criticized for being successful. Just unbelievable. Imagine this in any other context.

If the Royals can't compete they should be contracted. They have no special entitlement to a baseball franchise. They're not the good guys just because they're a failed franchise. The Yankees aren't the bad guys just because they're successful.

spleen1015

07-13-2010, 10:40 AM

MBBF, go take your shit some where else.

Lathum

07-13-2010, 10:43 AM

[QUOTE]I think the biggest argument against him is that when times came up where the owners (who MAKE the rules BTW) could have balanced the playing fields and done more to improve the game itself and return to the apex of American (and World Wide) sports, Steinbrenner was the leader of the "things are fine as they are" camp.

Things were fine for him. If the other owners/ commishoner weren't strong enough or organized enough to change the system that isn't Georges fault.

He was GREAT for the Yankees. He was worthless to baseball as a whole.

Just not true. When the Yankees are good it is good for baseball. Just like when the Lakers are good it is good for basketball. Do you really think baseball would have gotten as much TV money from Fox and ESPN if they didn't have good Yankee teams driving the ratings?

He was definitely an Icon within the sport, but I have no great feeling of loss at his demise. The Yankees might suffer some in the future, but perhaps the sport as a whole will grow and become more without him.

George has had virtually no involvement in the Yankees for years now. His son Hank runs the team and does just fine, nothing is changing.

JonInMiddleGA

07-13-2010, 10:43 AM

Only in MLB could someone be criticized for being successful. Just unbelievable. Imagine this in any other context.

Don't get carried away, it seems to be the norm in most businesses today.

molson

07-13-2010, 10:43 AM

Also, it's only the small market fans that claim that baseball has been "destroyed". Maybe for their failed franchises, it has been, but take a look at the overall MLB attendance numbers of the 90s and 00s v. previous decades.

Ajaxab

07-13-2010, 10:46 AM

How much of George's money has ended up DIRECTLY in your owner's pocket?

In my case, none. I haven't really followed baseball since '95 and the excesses of the Yankees are one of the reasons why. I haven't had an owner for 15 years because I haven't been a baseball fan for 15 years. I have no interest in watching a game between teams in the same professional league where one player makes as much, if not more, than another team in that league. It makes a mockery of the sport's competitive balance. Sure, some people don't like competitive balance or only appreciate competitive balance among those with the resources to be competitive, but I'm not one of those people when it comes to sports. Baseball is dead to me. You can't put the blame on George for that, but, as others have point out, he did nothing to encourage fans like me to stick with the game.

Crapshoot

07-13-2010, 10:46 AM

Lathum

07-13-2010, 10:48 AM

The whole Small market thing doesn't even fly with me anymore.

Minnesota just built a new stadium, is always competitive and just signed Mauer to a huge deal.

Padres are in first place.

Rays have amazing talent and went to the World series a few years ago and would be crushing any other division.

Reds are in first place and have a newish ballpark

Brewers have a new ballpark and in recent years have been competitive.

spleen1015

07-13-2010, 10:54 AM

Just because the Yankees and the Red Sox exist doesn't mean there's no parity in baseball.

Before you guys get too caught up in it, go look at the numbers. Go look at the playoff distribution over the last 10 years and then compare it to the likes of the NBA.

NBA has had 5 different champions over the last 10 years. MLB has had 8.

If the season ended today, I think the Yankees are the only team that would make the playoffs who also did last year.

Logan

07-13-2010, 10:56 AM

Anyway, while I'm certainly no NYY fan, I'll be stuck to WFAN for the rest of the day to hear some of the stories from past and current players, media, etc. I know Francesca is on vacation this week, which I'm sure he's kicking himself over right now.

Pretty sure I've mentioned this before on here, but Steinbrenner was one of the most charitable guys in NYC, and for the most part did it completely anonymously. On his own, he funded the gifts that went to all the less fortunate kids who would write letters to Santa asking for presents, which to me is one of the greatest things a man could ever do.

JediKooter

07-13-2010, 10:58 AM

RIP George, never really liked you, but, you were unique and put your mark forever on baseball.

molson

07-13-2010, 10:58 AM

Pretty sure I've mentioned this before on here, but Steinbrenner was one of the most charitable guys in NYC, and for the most part did it completely anonymously. On his own, he funded the gifts that went to all the less fortunate kids who would write letters to Santa asking for presents, which to me is one of the greatest things a man could ever do.

He was always a huge contributor to the Jimmy Fund when the Red Sox/WEEI had their fundraisers. John Henry always brought that up.

Edit: Of course, his biggest charitable cause was small market baseball teams.

Ronnie Dobbs2

07-13-2010, 11:03 AM

He was always a huge contributor to the Jimmy Fund when the Red Sox/WEEI had their fundraisers. John Henry always brought that up.

Bit of trivia, not really charity: MIT's football "stadium" is Steinbrenner Field, paid for by George in honor of his father, who ran track at MIT as an undergrad.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 11:05 AM

[quote=RendeR;2319195]

Just not true. When the Yankees are good it is good for baseball. Just like when the Lakers are good it is good for basketball. Do you really think baseball would have gotten as much TV money from Fox and ESPN if they didn't have good Yankee teams driving the ratings?

This statement is perfect. This shows exactly what is wrong with both sports you mention.

The sheer arrogance than without a competitive Yankee or Lakers team the league would suffer is utterly idiotic. Does it drive up ratings in NY and LA? sure. Does it do jack shit for anyone else? No, not really. Certainly not as much as having a competitive team in whatever local city you choose would do.

The saddest part is that the rest of the country has put up with this stupidity for so long that NY and LA seem to actually BELIEVE its the way things ought to be.

Did the Rams moving to St Louis hurt the NFL's ratings? not really. The single most balanced league in the nation is the NFL. Where is it ranked in relation to the other sports? Oh yeah, its number 1.

If the Yankees ceased to exist would baseball die? No. it would move on just fine without them.

Logan

07-13-2010, 11:10 AM

So you're really arguing that if the Yankees and Lakers didn't exist, revenues for all other teams in their respective leagues would be the same or better?

molson

07-13-2010, 11:12 AM

If the Yankees ceased to exist would baseball die? No. it would move on just fine without them.

True, but the Yankees aren't close to death. MLB would similarily move on fine if the 4 least successful franchises were contracted. (And at least two would have actually been contracted in 2002 if not for stadium lease issues)

Lathum

07-13-2010, 11:14 AM

[quote=Lathum;2319217]

The sheer arrogance than without a competitive Yankee or Lakers team the league would suffer is utterly idiotic. Does it drive up ratings in NY and LA? sure. Does it do jack shit for anyone else? No, not really. Certainly not as much as having a competitive team in whatever local city you choose would do.

The saddest part is that the rest of the country has put up with this stupidity for so long that NY and LA seem to actually BELIEVE its the way things ought to be.

Did the Rams moving to St Louis hurt the NFL's ratings? not really. The single most balanced league in the nation is the NFL. Where is it ranked in relation to the other sports? Oh yeah, its number 1.

If the Yankees ceased to exist would baseball die? No. it would move on just fine without them.

This statement is so wrong. Without looking I would be willing to guarantee when the Yankees are on the road the home teams attendance goes up. When the Yankees are on TV the ratings go up. When the Yankees are in the World Series more people are interested.

All of that is good for baseball. It generates more revenue for the league, which in turn is better for all the other teams.Would baseball die without the Yankees, of course not, but there would be a lot less money to go around.

JonInMiddleGA

07-13-2010, 11:17 AM

Does it do jack shit for anyone else? No, not really.

Wrong, just flat wrong.

Not even NY & Bos account for the ratings for Yankees-Red Sox games being anywhere from 50% to 100% higher than the average game.

Nor does the size of NY account for the Yankees being the most popular and the most hated team in baseball.
Long-running drama: Yankees vs. Red Sox remains big draw - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-05-07-yankees-redsox-cover_N.htm)

If they're on, people will watch around the entire country in greater numbers than anyone else. Not just NY, everywhere. It's great in SD if the Padres do well but hardly anyone elsewhere gives a rip, same is true with virtually every team outside of Boston really.

They're truly an entity unlike any other in all of U.S. pro sports, as other contenders/pretenders to the claim America's Team such as the Cowboys and the Braves have faded for various reasons.

Eaglesfan27

07-13-2010, 11:25 AM

Others have said it already, but George left a huge mark on the sport and made the Yankees what they are today. Other teams have had similar opportunities and have failed to take advantage of them. His growth of the brand over the years is remarkable. I think he was the biggest name in sports among any owner and I would have loved for him to own my team. RIP George.

oykib

07-13-2010, 11:30 AM

RIP Mr. Steinbrenner. We may not see your like again.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 12:16 PM

So you're really arguing that if the Yankees and Lakers didn't exist, revenues for all other teams in their respective leagues would be the same or better?

Not in this instance. I'm simply pointing out the inherint arrogance created by the flawed league designs of the MLB and NBA.

Look at the NFL, which for all intents and purposes is as near an idyllic league system as we have. Every team has the same amount of funds to work with for hiring talent due to the cap. That inherintly creates a level BASE for every team to start from. Now ownership and mangement styles are still going to create teams like the Browns who fail regularly or the Cowboys or Colts that succeed regularly.

Baseball and basketball just don't do this, they allow the richest teams to get richer and dominate on a far longer time frame than teams like..oh...the Sonics...Oh wait....

and to bring this back in line with the original thread idea: Steinbrener and the entire ownership group in MLB perpetuate this because it lines their pockets, regardless of whether it puts a quality product on the field.

miked

07-13-2010, 12:17 PM

Of course he's pure evil, I mean without his excessive spending, Jeffrey Loria wouldn't get to build his 5 mansions from unspent revenue sharing money...think of the children!

RendeR

07-13-2010, 12:22 PM

Wrong, just flat wrong.

Not even NY & Bos account for the ratings for Yankees-Red Sox games being anywhere from 50% to 100% higher than the average game.

Nor does the size of NY account for the Yankees being the most popular and the most hated team in baseball.
Long-running drama: Yankees vs. Red Sox remains big draw - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2010-05-07-yankees-redsox-cover_N.htm)

If they're on, people will watch around the entire country in greater numbers than anyone else. Not just NY, everywhere. It's great in SD if the Padres do well but hardly anyone elsewhere gives a rip, same is true with virtually every team outside of Boston really.

They're truly an entity unlike any other in all of U.S. pro sports, as other contenders/pretenders to the claim America's Team such as the Cowboys and the Braves have faded for various reasons.

The point being however that if the Padres do well THEIR ratings are FAR higher in San Diego than the yankees or red sox could ever reach.

I'm not trying to deny that there are many fans of the yankees and Red Sox everywhere, People move around in this country. Then you have the ownership models of Steinbrenner and company buying up the best players so that their teams are the ones winning consistantly and the fan base grows. HUman beings are psychophantic idjits for the most part. Every kid wants to root for a winner and if when their young and their local team sucks ass they might well choose a team thats winning. Or if they grow up where there isn't a real "local" team again they'll latch on to whomever is popular at the time.

I'm not trying to argue the reality we live in, I'm trying to explain that just because its what we have it doesn't mean its what is BEST for the sport as a whole.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 12:23 PM

[quote=RendeR;2319244]

This statement is so wrong. Without looking I would be willing to guarantee when the Yankees are on the road the home teams attendance goes up. When the Yankees are on TV the ratings go up. When the Yankees are in the World Series more people are interested.

All of that is good for baseball. It generates more revenue for the league, which in turn is better for all the other teams.Would baseball die without the Yankees, of course not, but there would be a lot less money to go around.

Again, everyone is ignoring the real point here.

Why are we happy that ratings only go up if the Yankees are playing? Shouldn't we want that effect to happen for every team? or at the least for about half of them?

1 team generating interest..good?

30 teams generating interest....Far better.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 12:25 PM

True, but the Yankees aren't close to death. MLB would similarily move on fine if the 4 least successful franchises were contracted. (And at least two would have actually been contracted in 2002 if not for stadium lease issues)

I'm not averse to that either. I think they probably should do this. Unfortunately no one will be able to agree on WHICH teams should get folded into the rest.

I'd post my opinion but this thread is supposed to be about George and I've jacked it enough already ;)

Logan

07-13-2010, 12:27 PM

Damn render learn how to quote :).

RendeR

07-13-2010, 12:33 PM

Yeah I was typing too fast. My bad.

miked

07-13-2010, 12:34 PM

Again, everyone is ignoring the real point here.

Why are we happy that ratings only go up if the Yankees are playing? Shouldn't we want that effect to happen for every team? or at the least for about half of them?

1 team generating interest..good?

30 teams generating interest....Far better.

Problem is, there are a handful of teams that merely suck the teats of the large teams paying all the players. They are content to field mediocre teams with low payrolls and pocket the money they receive, then cry "small market" when they lose. It's not the Steinbrenners that are bad for the league, it's the Lorias and the like that have no interest in making the sport any better.

Drake

07-13-2010, 12:40 PM

I'm a Red Sox fan, but I'm sad about Steinbrenner's passing. He was such a magnificent villain. Part of hating him was knowing that at the end of the day, he did what he did because he wanted to win as badly as I wanted to see the Sox win.

Maybe the best (personal) sports villain of my lifetime.

JonInMiddleGA

07-13-2010, 12:40 PM

Look at the NFL, which for all intents and purposes is as near an idyllic league system as we have.

Personally, once I hear the words "cut due to the salary cap", my interest is pretty much gone.

I thought about that today, the sports I follow most closely are college (no cap on indirect spending) and MLB, followed by NASCAR I guess. No caps in any of them.

Any interest I have in the NFL beyond casual water-cooler stuff is limited to however long Peyton is still in the league, the NBA is the least interesting league of them all & it's dominated by salary cap. The NHL is the only possible exception & when you're stuck with the Waddell-era Thrashers for a home team it's tough to keep the interest level up, so I'll call that one an "incomplete" for now.

The caps encourage mediocrity, and I have no real interest in that.

Izulde

07-13-2010, 12:40 PM

Problem is, there are a handful of teams that merely suck the teats of the large teams paying all the players. They are content to field mediocre teams with low payrolls and pocket the money they receive, then cry "small market" when they lose. It's not the Steinbrenners that are bad for the league, it's the Lorias and the like that have no interest in making the sport any better.

Pretty much.

It's one of the reasons it's such a joy being a White Sox fan. We have a GM and owner who will aggressively pursue winning championships within the team's means. And we have a World Series championship, an AL Central crown, and a current Central division lead to show for it.

Bad-example

07-13-2010, 12:41 PM

I wasn't a fan but I won't take a dump on the guy, even though that was my first inclination. RIP George. You will be missed but not by me.

ISiddiqui

07-13-2010, 12:42 PM

I'm not averse to that either. I think they probably should do this. Unfortunately no one will be able to agree on WHICH teams should get folded into the rest.

That's very true... some fanbases, even they are very small, would be outraged over talk to folding. In addition, some franchises are in areas they are in due to MLB wanting to become seen as a truly national brand rather than say just the coasts (it may be a reason why they'd like to really see KC succeed).

Furthermore, some of these franchises may have some history that MLB would rather not destroy (it makes folding the Marlins that much harder since they've won 2 World Series - though their new downtown stadium should increase attendance).

RendeR

07-13-2010, 12:46 PM

See now I'm of the opinion that the Steinbrenners of the league who fight tooth and nail against a balanced system are the very people who CREATE the Lorias.

They create a system that guarantees them higher returns and by creating such a void in quality opens the door for the Loria-type owners to say "oh look, free money"

And Jon: You are in the VAST minority in your opinion there. The increase in the NFL's popularity over the last 40 years shows that you get more fans if more teams do well and succeed. making more money for everyone, instead of just a chosen few.

Sun Tzu

07-13-2010, 12:56 PM

You just know George is yucking it up with Mantle, The Babe, & Gehrig right now. Trying to organize a Yankee dream team to beat the BoSox on a magical field in Iowa.

Ronnie Dobbs2

07-13-2010, 01:04 PM

And Jon: You are in the VAST minority in your opinion there. The increase in the NFL's popularity over the last 40 years shows that you get more fans if more teams do well and succeed. making more money for everyone, instead of just a chosen few.

Stating this unequivocally is ridiculous. There are a number of reasons for the NFL's popularity. Stating that the NFL's growth over the last 40 years is solely, or even mainly, due to something that's been around the last 16 is a difficult position to defend.

Atocep

07-13-2010, 01:14 PM

Hated the guy when I was younger. Now I've grown to see that all sports really need at least one owner like him.

RIP. The man made baseball better.

Lathum

07-13-2010, 01:44 PM

And Jon: You are in the VAST minority in your opinion there. The increase in the NFL's popularity over the last 40 years shows that you get more fans if more teams do well and succeed. making more money for everyone, instead of just a chosen few.

Interesting stance considering about 5 teams have won half the championships in the last 40 years.

Bad-example

07-13-2010, 04:22 PM

A nice balance to some of the puffery.

Let us remember George Steinbrenner, not whitewash him | HardballTalk (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/let-us-remember-george-steinbrenner-not-whitewash-him.php)

RendeR

07-13-2010, 06:59 PM

Interesting stance considering about 5 teams have won half the championships in the last 40 years.

44 Super Bowls

18 Different Winners
4 out of 32 teams have NEVER been to the Super Bowl

I'd say my stance is pretty solid actually.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 07:01 PM

Stating this unequivocally is ridiculous. There are a number of reasons for the NFL's popularity. Stating that the NFL's growth over the last 40 years is solely, or even mainly, due to something that's been around the last 16 is a difficult position to defend.

Free Agency has only been around that long. Revenue sharing and soft capping salaries dates back to the 60's when the AFL was challenging the NFL before the merger. They were very different systems back then but they existed in some form.

RendeR

07-13-2010, 07:06 PM

Lathum

07-13-2010, 07:21 PM

44 Super Bowls

18 Different Winners
4 out of 32 teams have NEVER been to the Super Bowl

I'd say my stance is pretty solid actually.

How is it a solid stance on equality when roughly half the teams have won a title?

Chubby

07-13-2010, 07:28 PM

Interesting stance considering about 5 teams have won half the championships in the last 40 years.

8 different teams have won WS titles in the last 9 years so keep trying...

Lathum

07-13-2010, 07:31 PM

8 different teams have won WS titles in the last 9 years so keep trying...

that just proves the point that spending in baseball hasn't really hurt the sport so I'm not sure what your point is other than to prove me right.

JediKooter

07-13-2010, 07:31 PM

44 Super Bowls

18 Different Winners
4 out of 32 teams have NEVER been to the Super Bowl

I'd say my stance is pretty solid actually.

Can't forget about the repeat losers. :)

Minnesota - 4
Denver- 4
Buffalo - 4
New England - 3
Dallas - 3
Miami - 3
Washington - 2
Cincinnati - 2
Indianapolis/Baltimore Colts - 2
Philadelphia - 2
Oakland - 2
Los Angeles/St. Louis Rams - 2

Atocep

07-13-2010, 07:34 PM

44 Super Bowls

18 Different Winners
4 out of 32 teams have NEVER been to the Super Bowl

I'd say my stance is pretty solid actually.

Out of the last 44 World Series baseball has 19 different winners and 4 teams out of 30 haven't been there.

Mizzou B-ball fan

07-13-2010, 08:44 PM

I have to laugh at some of the people using the Royals as an example of a team feeding off the big franchises. Anyone who uses that as an example obviously should tell the owner that the record payrolls and record payroll percentage increases along with paying for most of the huge renovation of his stadium was just another form of putting away money without trying to win.

There's several teams that are putting away money. The Royals aren't in that category.