[Arles]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

But they're not Top Ten! They have gained their success the RIGHT way, not through some crazy free-spending ways like the Top Ten.

I think there are tiers of resource spending. You have the the top tier with the Yankees/Sox/Dodgers/Angels (usually $180+M) who essentially have unlimited resources. You then have the Giants/Tigers/Phillies/Rangers (usually $140+M) who are basically topping out right now because of recent success but would need to trim payroll if they missed the playoffs for 2-3 seasons straight. After that is the massive middle class which ranges from $80 to $120 and includes most teams like the Braves, Cards, Nationals, Reds, Brewers, Orioles, Blue Jays... If any of these teams are successful, they could spike to $120M as a cap, but would still stay in the $100-$115 range.

IMO, the top tier is always going to have more animosity towards them because they are akin to the rich kid at the ivy league school. They've been afforded all advantages and can just spend more if they make mistakes. Even if they lose, people will hate them because of this advantage. Look at the Yankees this year, they stink and people still love to hate them. For that middle class, the animosity is almost entirely based on success. If they win, more people will hate them. If the Reds run off a 7-year frame like the Cards just did and win 2 World Series with 5 NLCS appearances - they will hated as much (if not more) than the Cardinals. Fan base and location have little to do with this tier, it's pretty much all success.

This thread is quickly reminding me of the multi-page threads we would have at the height of the Patriots heyday when it was all arguing back and forth between Pats fans who were basically saying everyone was just jealous of their success and everyone else saying there was more to it than that.

But yes, it is just simple jealousy if that helps you sleep at night.

Football is a little different as you don't have the inherent resource advantage and it's a much more popular sport. When you win, the obnoxious crew is much more prevalent because there are simply a ton more fans across the country. Baseball tends to be more regional.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Look at the TV ratings for the Steelers and Pirates. I'm guessing the Steelers get a far higher share than the Pirates do.

Of course they do, it's football. The Indianapolis Colts get a higher TV share in Kansas City than the Royals do - does that mean there are more Clots fans than Royals fans in KC? No, it's just the NFL. It's like comparing ratings between baseball and lacrosse, it's apples and oranges on TV.

Um... what about the early 2000s? When they had back to back 100 win season? In the late 80s, people hated Jose Canseco. You'll note Mark McGwire was never hated in anywhere near the same way.

McGwire was hated a great deal in Oakland. When he went to St. Louis after having year after year of injury for the As, a lot of fans disliked him. Then you add in the success he had combined with the Steroid cloud and I'd be hardpressed to find two more hated guys in baseball by many fans than Canseco and McGwire. Yet, in the late 90s, people didn't hate the As. Even when moneyball came out in the early 2000s - they didn't hate them a great deal. Now, if the A's come out and do what the Cards have done (2 WS and 5 ALCS in the next 7 years), there will be a lot of hatred for them - if only because of the sheer volume of the term "moneyball" on ESPN