Ohio Chatter DEV

thedynasty1998

lhslep134;461591 wrote:It's simple. Owning a sports franchise loses money. It's almost guaranteed.

In my sports econ class we learned the only reason to own a sports team is to have fun with it, because from a pure business standpoint it's a terrible decision financially.

Interesting point here. Although I don't necessarily agree, it would be interesting to see the percentage of teams that turn a profit each year.

like_that

I thought I read somewhere that all NFL teams made a profit last season. Not 100% sure though. Pretty cool that you have a sports econ class though lhslep.

jordo212000

KR1245;461033 wrote:You can start at 2003, thats fine.

Reds finished ahead of the Indians in total attendance in 03,04,06
Indians finished ahead of Reds in 05,07,08,09

If the Indians and the Marlins are on the same level then you gotta throw the Reds into that mix. Numbers done lie

You and your cheerleader hoops23 need to check your math again haha. From 2003-present the Reds have averaged 22,849 fans per season. During that same time span the Indians have averaged 21,108. The sad part of all this is that the Indians have been much more consistent than the Reds in wins and losses. The Indians had that deep playoff run a few years back...

jordo212000

Commander of Awesome;461175 wrote:I also loved how he tried to give excuses like a new stadium as a reason why fans started going.

Then why are teams and cities going into lots and lots of debt? To average the same amount of fans? Lol. You don't have much business sense do you? Heck even the Yankees tore down old Yankee Stadium in favor of a new and improved revenue maker. Obviously building a new stadium helps attendance. Look at your Indians. When the Jake first opened it was sold out for multiple years in a row.

jordo212000

like_that;461419 wrote:The new stadium makes his argument even weaker. Normally when franchises open a new stadium its a draw to fans and they come out to check it out and sell out the stadium. Somehow with a new stadium the Tribe still beat the Reds out in attendance lol.

Another person who didn't do the math... Reds averaged more and had fewer wins.

Indians have 611 wins since 2003, Reds have 595

Commander of Awesome

jordo212000;462063 wrote:You and your cheerleader hoops23 need to check your math again haha. From 2003-present the Reds have averaged 22,849 fans per season. During that same time span the Indians have averaged 21,108. The sad part of all this is that the Indians have been much more consistent than the Reds in wins and losses. The Indians had that deep playoff run a few years back...

oh so hoops backs the guy that has facts and disagrees with a troll so that makes him a cheer leader? What does that make you to dynasty then?

jordo212000

Commander of Awesome;462074 wrote:oh so hoops backs the guy that has facts and disagrees with a troll so that makes him a cheer leader? What does that make you to dynasty then?

KR1245 didn't have facts. He had an impression. I just gave you the facts. From 2003 to present, the Reds have averaged more fans all the while having fewer wins. KR1245 assumed the Indians had more fans without doing the math, hoops23 jumped on his bandwagon because the discussion involved me, and both were proven wrong.

KR1245 is not a bad guy to talk sports with. I respect him.

I just lose respect for people who stand at the sideline and use stupid internet jargon like "owned" while they themselves are the one who is incorrect. That's why I called him a cheerleader

like_that

jordo212000;462069 wrote:Another person who didn't do the math... Reds averaged more and had fewer wins.

Lol your hatred for Cleveland and it's fans is making you stretch to arguments beyond being able to repair your troll image. You have already been proven wrong now and digging yourself in a deeper hole. Fact of the matter is if we were such terrible fans (in your troll words "the same group with the marlins fans) then we shouldn't even be close to having better attendance than the reds in any given season. The reds had a pretty solid year last year, and Cleveland still finished ahead. Just give up man, you were proven wrong. We get it you don't like Cleveland. Good job.

The funny thing is you were proven wrong with your troll statements but we conveniently didn't follow your guidelines of starting at 2003, which shouldn't matter whether you have a new stadium or not... We still gave it to you, and your argument was still proven wrong as Cleveland's attendance has been higher in more seasons than the reds. Then of course you throw out the average, which honestly makes your argument even more of a FAIL. Sorry, but stadium that is only 7 years old and still only averaged 1,741 than Cleveland is a joke. Like I said earlier at least wait for your team to sell out 100 consecutive games before you talk shit. The reds are in playoff contention this season, and I doubt they even came close to selling out all their games.

Commander of Awesome

jordo212000;462089 wrote:KR1245 didn't have facts. He had an impression. I just gave you the facts. From 2003 to present, the Reds have averaged more fans all the while having fewer wins. KR1245 assumed the Indians had more fans without doing the math, hoops23 jumped on his bandwagon because the discussion involved me, and both were proven wrong.

KR1245 is not a bad guy to talk sports with. I respect him.

I just lose respect for people who stand at the sideline and use stupid internet jargon like "owned" while they themselves are the one who is incorrect. That's why I called him a cheerleader

You said KR didn't have facts? LOL ok, so aka I wasn't expecting someone to PWN me so hard, so now I'll whine and act what he presented isn't a fact to ruin his cred. Nice try. And you claim cincy fans have thicker skin. LMAO nice self pwn.

lhslep134

like_that;461646 wrote:I thought I read somewhere that all NFL teams made a profit last season. Not 100% sure though. Pretty cool that you have a sports econ class though lhslep.

It's possible, because of TV revenue.

All of the numbers we used in class were up to like 2005, and since then I think its safe to say that TV advertising and revenue has increased to unanticipated levels.

I remember reading 2 years ago the Cavs barely broke even and they were one of the highest revenue teams in the league.

If you look at the owners across sports, a good amount of them already have tons of money to blow and don't really need to incur debt, but a lot of them don't know how to spend it, because it's not necessarily guaranteed that to make money you have to spend money in sports.

I can easily see why an owner of a small market team would purposely refuse to spend money in order to maximize profits, it just doesn't make sense to me because in sports there's not a lot of profit to be had so you might as well go all out right?

That's why guys like Mark Cuban and Steinbrenner were/are my favorite owners, because they understood that the best money maker was happy fans and that sometimes you need to risk losing money for the benefit of the fan who you're trying to please.

thedynasty1998

This discussion is really confusing. Jordo provided hard facts and yet is still considered to be wrong? And it's comical that I'm mentioned in a discussion that I have nothing to do with, only a stalker would do that.

thedynasty1998

lhslep134;462207 wrote:It's possible, because of TV revenue.

All of the numbers we used in class were up to like 2005, and since then I think its safe to say that TV advertising and revenue has increased to unanticipated levels.

I remember reading 2 years ago the Cavs barely broke even and they were one of the highest revenue teams in the league.

If you look at the owners across sports, a good amount of them already have tons of money to blow and don't really need to incur debt, but a lot of them don't know how to spend it, because it's not necessarily guaranteed that to make money you have to spend money in sports.

I can easily see why an owner of a small market team would purposely refuse to spend money in order to maximize profits, it just doesn't make sense to me because in sports there's not a lot of profit to be had so you might as well go all out right?

That's why guys like Mark Cuban and Steinbrenner were/are my favorite owners, because they understood that the best money maker was happy fans and that sometimes you need to risk losing money for the benefit of the fan who you're trying to please.

This is an interesting discussion. Obviously teams are owned privately so for most teams we don't know their financials. But I would imagine most NFL teams are turning a profit as are most MLB owners. The NBA would be my only question, but even in the NBA I would imagine half the teams at least are turning a profit.

Commander of Awesome

thedynasty1998;462311 wrote:This discussion is really confusing. Jordo provided hard facts and yet is still considered to be wrong? And it's comical that I'm mentioned in a discussion that I have nothing to do with, only a stalker would do that.

No he didnt provide "Hard Facts". He narrowed his views and skewed the stats so they fit his agenda and was pwned when called upon it. You were mentioned bc he made a fail statement about Hoops being Kr's cheerleader. Good god I forgot how dense you are, I'll to remeber I have to explain everything to you like a child or else you get your panties in a tight wad. Btw the comment was becuase you and Jordo are both dellusional idiots you repeatedly get your feet in your mouth and get pwned by everyone on the boards.

-Also OMGzzz stop following me on the boards and commenting after every post I make!! OMG youre such a stalker!!! lolfail.

trep14

I think there could be some confounding variables as to why the Indians have had less attendance than the Reds. For one, the Indians were only really in contention in 2005 and 2007, which isn't really a hallmark of a dynasty, its not like the Indians were that much more successful than the Reds. Also, with the success of the Cavs over that time period, fans who have a limited amount of money to spend are going to go watch the Cavs rather than watching a mediocre to bad Indians team during their down years. So some of it may have to do with Cleveland supporting three major sports teams while Cincy only supports two. I think what it boils down to is that Cleveland sports fans (with the exception of the Browns) are no more die-hard than anyone else, but I wouldn't go as far as to say they are more of a bandwagon fan base than anyone else (for small market teams, obviously places like Toronto, Chicago, etc. are going to have attendance simply because the market is so large). When a team is winning, fans come out to watch; when its not, they don't come out to watch. Unless you are a Tampa Bay fan, they don't come out to watch period.

like_that

thedynasty1998;462311 wrote:This discussion is really confusing. Jordo provided hard facts and yet is still considered to be wrong? And it's comical that I'm mentioned in a discussion that I have nothing to do with, only a stalker would do that.

I guess it's the other way around, and you are Jordo's cheerleader. I would explain it to you, but COA has already done that, and it still will go over your head.

enigmaax

trep14;462386 wrote:Unless you are a Tampa Bay fan, they don't come out to watch period.

Actually, I think that makes Tampa Bay fans THE greatest because nobody is ever jumping on the bandwagon. Whether they are winning or losing, 100% of their fans - all six of them - are at the game.

thedynasty1998

like_that;462416 wrote:I guess it's the other way around, and you are Jordo's cheerleader. I would explain it to you, but COA has already done that, and it still will go over your head.

Please do explain it to me. Jordo had attendance numbers for the time period that was being discussed. How is it the other way around?

like_that

thedynasty1998;462435 wrote:Please do explain it to me. Jordo had attendance numbers for the time period that was being discussed. How is it the other way around?

Seriously, you can't read the thread and understand? I will try to number it for you:

1. We argued the Tribe had better attendance this decade, but Jordo whined and said it wasn't fair, because the reds opened their new stadium in 2003. Why should it matter? Well because it helps his argument out better. So, we gave it to him even though attendance numbers are always elevated for a few years after opening a new stadium.

2. Even after starting at 2003, Cleveland still had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons.

Note: Keep in mind he said Tribe fans are amongst the worst out there. They are in the same group as Marlins fans, the worst fans in the MLB.

3. After being proven wrong, he states the reds have had a higher overall average since 2003. Of course we have to play by his rules after being proven wrong again.

4. Even with a stadium that is only 7 years old, the reds still only averaged 1,741 fans than Cleveland.

So, consider the facts of the whole argument.

-The reds opened a brand new stadium in 2003 (which still shouldn't matter but we give it to him)
-Even after opening they average a small number more than Cleveland
-Cleveland also had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons
-He said we are amongst the worst fans in the MLB, same group as the Marlins.

The fact that he said we are amongst the worst fans in the mlb and in the same group of the marlins makes him wrong. If he is going to make such asinine claims, the argument shouldn't even be close. I am sure this will go over your head though.

Commander of Awesome

like_that;462457 wrote:Seriously, you can't read the thread and understand? I will try to number it for you:

1. We argued the Tribe had better attendance this decade, but Jordo whined and said it wasn't fair, because the reds opened their new stadium in 2003. Why should it matter? Well because it helps his argument out better. So, we gave it to him even though attendance numbers are always elevated for a few years after opening a new stadium.

2. Even after starting at 2003, Cleveland still had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons.

Note: Keep in mind he said Tribe fans are amongst the worst out there. They are in the same group as Marlins fans, the worst fans in the MLB.

3. After being proven wrong, he states the reds have had a higher overall average since 2003. Of course we have to play by his rules after being proven wrong again.

4. Even with a stadium that is only 7 years old, the reds still only averaged 1,741 fans than Cleveland.

So, consider the facts of the whole argument.

-The reds opened a brand new stadium in 2003 (which still shouldn't matter but we give it to him)
-Even after opening they average a small number more than Cleveland
-Cleveland also had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons
-He said we are amongst the worst fans in the MLB, same group as the Marlins.

The fact that he said we are amongst the worst fans in the mlb and in the same group of the marlins makes him wrong. If he is going to make such asinine claims, the argument shouldn't even be close. I am sure this will go over your head though.

Nice job summing up the pwnage being put on Jordo. Dynasty ALWAYS has to have things explained to him, its annoying. Just read the freaking thread from now on Dynasty. Stop being a whinny 3 yr old dumbass for 5 sec. Seriously, you said Jordo had "FACTS" and yet failed to mention the facts that shit on Jordo. Just stfu troll.

enigmaax

like_that;462457 wrote: So, consider the facts of the whole argument.

-The reds opened a brand new stadium in 2003 (which still shouldn't matter but we give it to him)
-Even after opening they average a small number more than Cleveland
-Cleveland also had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons
-He said we are amongst the worst fans in the MLB, same group as the Marlins.

The fact that he said we are amongst the worst fans in the mlb and in the same group of the marlins makes him wrong. If he is going to make such asinine claims, the argument shouldn't even be close. I am sure this will go over your head though.

I'm with you in that looking at the numbers, there isn't a huge difference between the Reds and Indians. But that isn't the point you are trying to refute, is it? The fact that the Reds and Indians may BOTH be some of the worst fans doesn't make him wrong about the Indians being in the same class as the Marlins, which is what you took issue with, correct? Can we see a comparison to the Marlins?

trep14

enigmaax;462476 wrote:I'm with you in that looking at the numbers, there isn't a huge difference between the Reds and Indians. But that isn't the point you are trying to refute, is it? The fact that the Reds and Indians may BOTH be some of the worst fans doesn't make him wrong about the Indians being in the same class as the Marlins, which is what you took issue with, correct? Can we see a comparison to the Marlins?

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/marlins3.shtml

Marlins attendance seems like it is significantly lower than the Indians/Reds. I don't think I'd put the Indians and Reds in the same ballpark as the Marlins.

Indians: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cleiatte.shtml

Reds: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/redsatte.shtml

thedynasty1998

like_that;462457 wrote:Seriously, you can't read the thread and understand? I will try to number it for you:

1. We argued the Tribe had better attendance this decade, but Jordo whined and said it wasn't fair, because the reds opened their new stadium in 2003. Why should it matter? Well because it helps his argument out better. So, we gave it to him even though attendance numbers are always elevated for a few years after opening a new stadium.

2. Even after starting at 2003, Cleveland still had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons.

Note: Keep in mind he said Tribe fans are amongst the worst out there. They are in the same group as Marlins fans, the worst fans in the MLB.

3. After being proven wrong, he states the reds have had a higher overall average since 2003. Of course we have to play by his rules after being proven wrong again.

4. Even with a stadium that is only 7 years old, the reds still only averaged 1,741 fans than Cleveland.

So, consider the facts of the whole argument.

-The reds opened a brand new stadium in 2003 (which still shouldn't matter but we give it to him)
-Even after opening they average a small number more than Cleveland
-Cleveland also had better attendance in 4 seasons vs the reds 3 seasons
-He said we are amongst the worst fans in the MLB, same group as the Marlins.

The fact that he said we are amongst the worst fans in the mlb and in the same group of the marlins makes him wrong. If he is going to make such asinine claims, the argument shouldn't even be close. I am sure this will go over your head though.

I understood the facts, but even after they were posted, my stalker claimed "no he didn't provide 'hard facts'", which is disputable. Obviously his numbers sided to his side of the argument and I'm not the one arguing who has better fans between the Indians and the Reds.

like_that

enigmaax;462476 wrote:I'm with you in that looking at the numbers, there isn't a huge difference between the Reds and Indians. But that isn't the point you are trying to refute, is it? The fact that the Reds and Indians may BOTH be some of the worst fans doesn't make him wrong about the Indians being in the same class as the Marlins, which is what you took issue with, correct? Can we see a comparison to the Marlins?

No, the point is if you don't have room to talk shit, then don't talk shit.

enigmaax

jordo212000;458642 wrote:You serious Clark? Just look at the recent history of the two cities. Cleveland nearly lost the Cavaliers before Stern stepped in and delivered Lebron and right now the Indians rank last in MLB attendance 30th of 30 teams. The Indians had all of those sell outs in a row in the late 90s, 00s. Now they're the worst? What has changed? They suck now and people quit coming. There is nothing more fair weather than that.

Jordo's original point was that Cleveland is more of a fair weather fanbase.

I chose 1990 as a starting point because the Reds prime was 1990 (won the Series) and it includes Jordo's reference to the 90s Indians.

Cincinnati averaged 26,358 over the 20 years. Their low was 21,579 and their high was 33,003. That range is about 82%-125%.

Cleveland averaged 29,991 over the 20 years. Their low was 12,986 and their high was 42,670.
That range is about 43%-143%.

Clearly, there are significantly less Cleveland fans at certain times and significantly more at certain times. The Reds attendance doesn't stray nearly as far in either direction whether they are winning or losing and THAT is what determines who is "fair weather".

Same numbers for the last decade:
Reds: 83%-122% (about the same)
Indians: 78%-149% (slightly improved with more winning seasons)

Marlins
93-present (weren't around in 90): 48%-182% (their first two season were really skewed)
Last decade: 59%-134%

thedynasty1998

enigmaax;462674 wrote:Jordo's original point was that Cleveland is more of a fair weather fanbase.

I chose 1990 as a starting point because the Reds prime was 1990 (won the Series) and it includes Jordo's reference to the 90s Indians.

Cincinnati averaged 26,358 over the 20 years. Their low was 21,579 and their high was 33,003. That range is about 82%-125%.

Cleveland averaged 29,991 over the 20 years. Their low was 12,986 and their high was 42,670.
That range is about 43%-143%.

Clearly, there are significantly less Cleveland fans at certain times and significantly more at certain times. The Reds attendance doesn't stray nearly as far in either direction whether they are winning or losing and THAT is what determines who is "fair weather".

Same numbers for the last decade:
Reds: 83%-122% (about the same)
Indians: 78%-149% (slightly improved with more winning seasons)

Marlins
93-present (weren't around in 90): 48%-182% (their first two season were really skewed)
Last decade: 59%-134%

Those are some very interesting numbers and it would be interesting to compare league wide. I better not say anything more than that in hopes of not being called a troll or being told "stfu".

Archive

LeBron has some not nice words regarding Gilbert, Cleveland in GQ