The problem with sports and parity

I'll start by saying that there is nothing wrong with parity. Yes, I know what the title says. Here's the beef: Take any major sport in America that relies on parity (NBA, MLB, NFL), and at the end of the season when a small-market team makes the finals, the league complains that the TV ratings are down. The management of these leagues believe that the big are getting too big and winning all the time, so they'll (rightly) institute parity, however the drawback to this is low TV ratings.

What is parity? For those of you who do not follow the sports, parity is a way of leveling the playing field. In most sports it is a salary cap, which if effective, means that no team can spend more than the other. It means that every team will play the same number of prime-time, 'game of the week' games on national television. In essence, every team is equal, which allows all teams to have a fighting chance to win.

So what's the problem? Nothing if you are a true fan of the sport. For me, I'll watch a baseball game between the Seattle and Minnesota (two smaller market teams) because it is a chance to see a handful of really great players, and the game is full of fundamentals. And if Tampa Bay meets Colorado in the World Series, I would probably catch a game or two, though I don't have any vested interest in either team, but simply because it could be a good game.

But how many true baseball fans are out there? Aside from me, my friends Boone and Phil and Peter Gammons, there are few fans of the game. If the Red Sox do not make the Series, how many people from Boston do you think would catch even an inning of one game? Same goes for the other major sports.

Now here's the rub: the sporting commissioners fought long and hard to level the playing field, the players' unions fight long and hard to get every dollar out of the teams. Parity is in place to make every team competitive (if they chose to be), but the leagues complain when their ratings tank. All of this is due to sports fans being loyal to their teams. There are no 'sports fans' out there anymore. There are Raiders fans, Yankees fans, Astros fans, Chiefs fans, Spurs fans... if their team isn't in it, then they don't care, and they aren't going to watch. Parity has made the games more interesting, and the season is more interesting, but when it comes to the playoffs, ratings shouldn't matter. A solution would be to only show the playoff games in the local market, but offer the games online (for free)to a multi-national market. You want to grow your sports again? Offer something free, and watch the people flock. You'll make new fans around the world, which increases your marketability, and gives you more money in the long run.

Possible Sox trade for Peavy...

as the Sox are being BLOWN out by the Twins, 20-1 in the 9th inning. What better way to say, 'Jake, come play for us!' than to be completely obliterated, at home, by an division rival? A couple errors which lead to at least 8 runs, that's exactly what a pitcher wants to see.

But in regards to the possible trade, I'm not sure what to make of it. He really wants to stay in the NL, which makes me think that he will have a very tough time pitching in the hitting-heavy AL. He's not going to be comfortable, so it makes me wonder how he will deal with that first big loss. It's also not clear which players will be traded, other than 4. Rumor has Richard and Poreda, which are two fairly large losses, being both very young and left-handed. Who are the other two? I won't have an official opinion until I know who that is.

This could be a decent trade though. The AL Central is weak, and the Sox do need another pitcher (or two actually, because Colon just threw up this afternoon for the second straight game). Peavy would be #2 on the staff, with Buehrle #1, Floyd #3 and Danks #4. Not too bad of a staff, if we could find a legit #5. More to come.

Giving up cable TV

So it's been about six months since we gave up cable TV, and so far, no one has gone crazy yet. The experiment is so far working! Seriously though, we do spend more time watching DVD's of old episodes, mainly Simpsons and Futurama. The only thing that I've been missing is Discovery, History and the random sports that ESPN2 aired. Otherwise, we watch everything on Hulu, or NBC. I listen to Bears and Blackhawks games online, and I purchased MLB.TV to watch Sox games (and other games as well). The only downside to any of this, is that we had to increase our bandwidth levels through the Lawrence monopoly. Has it been worth it? Yes... Olivia has watched a whole lot less TV, which I think is good for a four-year-old. We spend more time online (I'm an information whore, I read news sites all day), but we also spend more time together as a family.

It's not for everyone though. I couldn't imagine having several kids, and not having TV. And I do miss quite a bit: throwing on Discovery on a Saturday, or waking up early on Sunday's to watch the Samurai movies, and especially the James Bond marathons on TNT. Specifically, we did this for fiscal reasons, saving the $80 per month on digital hi-def TV, but now... I don't know when we will go back. The more and more I read, the more things are going toward online services anyway. Maybe we'll just wait it out.