Northeast Fixation?

[John F]

Please comment on the poll and discussion point from the front page here.

[645]

I have to say No to the question for the simple fact of unless you can name one team after another and make a case for they are playing in a city that don't desolve a team.

Sure, You might come up with one or two but the market do away with them sooner or later.

[John F]

OK, I'm confused about your reply 645. The question was asking if the entire northeast market gets too much of a fixation from professional sports -- that's not a team by team issue, that's a city-by-city/league by league issue. Team placement over the entire continent is the comparison point. Should you lump most of your teams in a 500 mile radius or spread them out. With the lumping that goes on, why should the media give a rats ass about the rest of the teams in the US when you have ratings to reach in this lone segment of the population (with a high degree of population density)?

[DR3AMR]

I think someone could make the argument that there isn't a fixation with NE teams in every sport other than baseball.

The media's attention on the Yanks and BoSox is beyond ridiculous. Its the number one reason why I no longer watch ESPN.

[bedir than average]

John, for purpose of the discussion are Penn and Ohio part of the NE?

[bedir than average]

Here's a link to a Google Map of sports franchises by number in market

The fixation might actually be for any market in a state/province that borders the Great Lakes, plus Mass. and Quebec.
I would love if I could overlay population density on that.

but here's one you can look at in another window, tab, whatever

Image:USA-2000-population-density.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[645]

Originally Posted by John F

OK, I'm confused about your reply 645. The question was asking if the entire northeast market gets too much of a fixation from professional sports -- that's not a team by team issue, that's a city-by-city/league by league issue. Team placement over the entire continent is the comparison point. Should you lump most of your teams in a 500 mile radius or spread them out. With the lumping that goes on, why should the media give a rats ass about the rest of the teams in the US when you have ratings to reach in this lone segment of the population (with a high degree of population density)?

You may think it isn't a team by team, city by city issue but the bottom line it is for the market always desides.

Every owner of a sports team wants a winning team and they want to make money from it. and where there is a team that is losing money then they have to find a way to make more money though building a new home to play in or moving to a better market where they can better success.

If there was too much Northeast Fixation there would be one team after another after another losing a lots of money and can you say there are that many.

Remember it is all about the money and all the teams are fixed where they can make the most money.

[John F]

"Oversaturation" is what you are implying when you say "
If there was too much Northeast Fixation there would be one team after another after another losing a lots of money and can you say there are that many."

FIXATION means FOCUS. And Focus is a broader discussion point than market saturation and pure business motives. Focus -- and a fixation on one region over total league coverage -- effects a league entirely.

Market oversaturation is an entirely different point and would be more suited in one fo the other threads (forget the title)

[John F]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

John, for purpose of the discussion are Penn and Ohio part of the NE?

For the sake of discussion - yeah. I'd even throw Detroit into it.

DR3AM -- Hockey. That's just as bad with market fixation in the NE and eastern Canada.

[bedir than average]

John, if you are talking media, should they not be covering the sport concerning where both the most teams and the most fans are?

[John F]

Media has more than the Northeast to cover. It's a crime to seemingly brand teams in that region the best -- or give them the lump of coverage - and exclude and ignore the rest of the country.

I mean, ESPN's got a fixation on Yankees/Red Sox and the country is flat out tired of it. And what does ESPN continue to jam down the country's throat? Yankee and Red Sox coverage. Part of it is because of the population of New England and New York being involved here and the other part of it is because Bristol, Connecticut is ESPN's home.

Dodgers/Giants has been muted, if not castrated. Chicago/St. Louis as well. And this is just baseball I'm talking about here. When a pro team of the other 3 big leagues ends up competitive but isn't in the Tri-state area of New York, New Jersey or Connecticut (or in New England) the degree of coverage falls. Is that wise to pull with a California team? You were trumpeting the Pacific Northwest in the other thread -- if they matter, wouldn't it be wise to praise them instead of following around Yankee players like paparazzi?

Actually, I have to retract "other three" in my statement. The NFL tends to put all teams on a level playing field. The Giants/Jets don't have the extra coverage you'd expect and small town teams like Green Bay are relevant too because everyone is on a level playing field.

But still, fixating on one region is not justified when the country has 300 million citizens spanning from Maine to Key West to San Diego to Seattle....

[nanwynnfan]

"I mean, ESPN's got a fixation on Yankees/Red Sox and the country is flat out tired of it. And what does ESPN continue to jam down the country's throat? Yankee and Red Sox coverage. Part of it is because of the population of New England and New York being involved here and the other part of it is because Bristol, Connecticut is ESPN's home."

Another part of it is a tradition that dates back over a century dealing with the longest, most dramatic and star-laden team-on-team matchup in professional sports history.

If the question of coverage being concentrated in the northeast or just pali east half a century ago, the point would be valid. We just didn't have the transportation technology and logistics to support wide expansion for a long schedule back then.

As to the Dodgers-Gieants rivalry falling 'way behind Yankees-Red Sox:

1. They left their "roots" half a century ago;

2. They haven't managed, as franchises, to generate close races involving their head-on collisions like the others have.

I'd say bedir's franchise color-coded franchise distribution map, combined with professional sports attendance figures for each franchise in professional sports, wou;d give evidence that the old NE stronghold is/has been giving way for some time now.

[Timberwolf]

The Dodger/Giant rivalry still had a lot of juice in the 1960's. The two teams haven't both been good at the same time for a while.

I think the Yankee/Red Sox thing will fade as a national rivalry since Yankee-haters have been increasingly turned off by the way the Red Sox have evolved into Yankee Light since they won their championship.