GotowarMissAgnes wrote:Further, your points on revenue are misguided in some respects. Increases in the number of franchises and the subsequent revenue gain are a sign of a sport's ability to capitalizing on its growing popularity. There's no reason to discount that in the assessment. Similarly, stadia and naming rights represent additional signs of a sport's popularity, from both the public sector and the private corporate sector. Government bodies generally try to avoid unpopular moves, and private sponsors generally try to align themselves with popular trends. Thus, I don't see any reason why they are not part of the equation of understanding a sport's popularity. They may not be the best representative of the typical fan's vies of the sport, but, as I've said, there are many aspects to popularity.
Again, not necessarily. It may simply mean that the corporate managers have decided to more greatly exploit the opportunities available to them.
GotowarMissAgnes wrote:I fail to see how my "analysis" of baseball's popularity, based at least on objective data like what people spend their dollars and time on, is poorer than your analysis, which relies primarily on what you describe as "your overall impression" based on such highly scientific measures like who you spoke to at the water cooler yesterday.
I understand and appreciate the deficiencies in my method. I don't know if you can say the same.
You're completely flipping around the whole concept of "popularity". You're starting from the point that opinion polls might not be completely credible because people might tell a surveyor one thing but then act on their true preferences as something else and then flipping that to defending any source of revenue as being proof positive of something being popular. Just because a city builds a new stadium where the owners are able to juice the corporate citizens on luxury boxes to a greater extent than they were last year, does not make baseball more popular. It simply means that baseball is becoming better businessmen.
In the Harris poll, 20 years ago football and baseball were tied among people self-reporting their favorite sport. Now football has the edge 33% to 14%. Twenty years ago, the Nielsen ratings for the Super Bowl are approximately equivalent to what they are now but they were twice as high for the World Series as they are now. These are actual popularity numbers. Baseball is losing out.
If you want to include other mind-share numbers like web hits or fantasy leagues or what have you, fine. But the use of revenue as a proxy for popularity is so problematic that I really don't understand why you continue to drag it out and put it on center stage.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.