From: jhg8680@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon  Hamkins)
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:13:47 GMT

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

>In article <1992Aug25.164740.20196@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.152629.22215@informix.com> barrym@informix.com (Barry Mednick) writes:
>>>Is it time to wrest control of the game from the owners?

>>If you're not happy with baseball, don't pay for it.  If people don't pay
>>for it, it will change.
>>
>>Sherri Nichols
>>snichols@adobe.com

>It is unrealistic to think that not paying for baseball will solve all of 
>its problems.  

Naturally.  Noone claimed this, however.  It will cause is to change
for the better.

>We all love the game too much not to go and 

I think we all agree that if ticket prices doubled, there would be a
corresponding decrease in attendance.  We might go, but just not as
often.  Love or no love.

unfortunatley, the 
>owners seem to know just how much we'll pay to participate in the ritual in its
>various forms. 

Why "unfortunately"?  I expect them to know these things, just as
people in another business know just how much I'll pay to buy a tube of
toothpaste.  That's just good business knowledge.  I'd start getting
worried if they didn't think about these things.

Taking away the anit-trust exemption is the neccessary first 
>step for any serious revamp of the present system and its corresponding evils.

I agree.  I have a feeling I'd disagree with your definition of evils,
though.  I'd want expansion to be easier, and professional baseball more
enticing to owners.  I regard tying the owners hands as evil.

>[commissioner being puppet of owners is evil]
>Obviously, the owner should be allowed to profit from 
>their investment but it seems clear the commissioner should use his power to 
>protect the game from the owners, the players, and the fans if need be.  

It's not clear to me that there should even be a commissioner, let
alone one that protects baseball "from" the owners.  What does that
mean, anyway?  I sure as hell wouldn't invest in an area in which
someone else had a ultimate control over what happens to my
profits.  

> The sentiment in the original post was
>one of disgust with the behavior of certain owners who not only are greedy, but
>compromise the integrity of the game by making stupid business decisions they
>think will maximize profits, such as installing artificial turf, not having 
>double headers (although the players association is opposed to them also), and
>basing positions on the reallignment questions on rivalries, when every one 
>know new rivalries, just as intense, can be cultivated rather quickly. 

That was not what was said in the original post at all.  OK, the word
"greed" appears in the post, but all the other ideas here you have
introduced.

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.

 Without a strong commissioner 
>or the end of the anti-trust exemption, we fans have very few options and 
>not going or buying major-league regalia will do nothing.  

That's where you are wrong.  I wouldn't underestimate the power of
money--- either that being spent, or that not being spent.

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