From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:24:51 GMT

miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey) writes:

>In article <BtK031.EBF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins) writes:
>>
>>>It is unrealistic to think that not paying for baseball will solve all of 
>>>its problems.  
>>
>>Naturally.  Noone claimed this, however.  It will cause it to change
>>for the better.
>	Yes, she did. re-read the original post. She suggested that not 
>spending money on the game would force the owners to change their behavior.

Look, she said if you don't pay for it, it will change.  That much was
stated plainly, and I completely agree.  In fact, I agree with almost
everything she has claimed.

Sherri did not claim that not paying will "solve all of its problems."
I don't think *any* solution is capable of solving all problems, and it
appeared you were twisting what Sherri had originally said.

>	Your counterexample is inappropriate. Any drastic changes in the cost
>would obviously curb our participation; however, because the owners are
>"good business people" they are able to gradually increase the cost and charge
>the maximum possible and still fill the stadiums. This may be good business, 
>but it is also rather mean-spirited. Whatever happened to making an honest 
>profit, not the greatest profit possible.

I don't view maximizing revenue as "mean-spirited", especially if the
stadiums are full.  People are getting exactly what they paid for.  If
the stadiums are just about full when the prices are high (not that
they *are* high; Sherri claims prices have risen slower than inflation
over the years), then lowering the prices will just create long lines
for tickets since even more people will try getting them, or the same
high price from scalpers.  Is this what you mean by an honest profit?
Why is this better?

>sometimes, the commissioner must interfere and force the owners to do things
>they do not want to because it is in the best interests of the game. Such as
>allowing African-Americans to play in the major-leagues, for example.

Such as fining, suspending, and banning people from baseball at will.
Such as voiding sales and trades between consenting parties.  Such as
violating his own agreements with Rose.  Such as splitting the
expansion money and players so that everyone is pissed.  Such as making
a mockery out of league jurisdiction.

As for your example, I'm not convinced Vincent's anti-racism record is
all that great, considering the blundering fashion he handled the sale
of the Mariners.  It only went through after the foreign control was
reduced.

On the whole, we'd be a lot better off without him, IMHO.

>>Perhaps you have a reason why double headers *help* revenues?  And do
>>you really think the Cubs's line to the public about rivalries is more
>>important to them than lost TV money from west coast games?  There is a
>>difference between public relations statements and what they are
>>actually thinking.

>	I never said double headers help revenues. I used them as an example
>of something which actually lowers revenues, but which there seems to be 
>a strong demand for from fans. Or more accurately, from prominent sport
>writers. 

I don't rely on prominent sports writers to decide anything for me.  If
there is a "strong demand" for the doubleheaders, then presumably these
fans are willing to put their money where their mouths are.  (If not,
I'd say it's just hot air.)  And the "mean-spirited" owners who are
maximizing profit can give the fans just what they want.  This is
exactly the kind of power fans have that Sherri was talking about.  I
doubt very seriously that anyone claims the doubleheaders are worth
it.  Even you don't.

     ----Jon Hamkins  (hamkins@uiuc.edu)
         University of Illinios
         Urbana, IL