- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Forbes calculates the avg MLB franchise worth 1.2 billion
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:33 pm
quote:
Forbes' other lists have had the average NFL team worth $1.43 billion, average NBA team worth $1.1 billion and the average NHL team at $490 million.
Great time for baseball!
Thanks to the new TV deal.
LINK
This post was edited on 3/25/15 at 2:34 pm
6
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:35 pm to barry
The NHL really is small time compared to the other Big 3. I wish they had more competent management of the league to make some gains
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:35 pm to barry
quote:
Three other teams have topped a $2 billion price tag -- the Los Angeles Dodgers ($2.4 billion)
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:37 pm to Bags of Milk
quote:
The NHL really is small time compared to the other Big 3. I wish they had more competent management of the league to make some gains
Leaving ESPN probably wasn't the best idea. It's also probably just the nature of the sport, not nearly as TV friendly as the Big 3.
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:39 pm to Bags of Milk
quote:
The NHL really is small time compared to the other Big 3. I wish they had more competent management of the league to make some gains
Gary Bettman
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:40 pm to tigerpimpbot
quote:
Gary Bettman
Posted on 3/25/15 at 2:56 pm to Bags of Milk
quote:
The NHL really is small time compared to the other Big 3. I wish they had more competent management of the league to make some gains
For most of America there is no historical connection to hockey. And it's difficult to grow the sport when for all intents and purposes it's unavailable to most of the country. Outside of the upper Midwest and northeast there is no youth hockey network to speak of
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:01 pm to LL012697
quote:
For most of America there is no historical connection to hockey. And it's difficult to grow the sport when for all intents and purposes it's unavailable to most of the country. Outside of the upper Midwest and northeast there is no youth hockey network to speak of
one reason why 10 years from now MLS will take over NHL for the 4 spot in the big 4 leagues.
This post was edited on 3/25/15 at 3:03 pm
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:06 pm to barry
quote:
Leaving ESPN probably wasn't the best idea. It's also probably just the nature of the sport, not nearly as TV friendly as the Big 3.
Agree with your first point, however your second point is only valid if you have a standard definition tube television
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:17 pm to barry
I disagree it's not TV friendly, I think hockey is great on TV. The regional part makes it really tough, large portions of the US don't play or follow it and it isn't exactly easy to basically introduce an entire new sport to areas that are already crazy about football basketball and baseball. I enjoy hockey and would probably go and follow more if Houston had a team, but I don't know how many others would. I think it is what it is at this point, which a popular regional sport
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:23 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
the best thing for hockey right now is to have teams in the southern portion of the US to succeed. hockey has gained a lot of ground in California the last ten years, and a lot of that is because the sharks, ducks, and kings have been successful
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:29 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
quote:
I disagree it's not TV friendly, I think hockey is great on TV.
Totally agree, I think hockey is the best sport for TV. It's fast paced and free flowing with the fewest breaks in action. It just isn't popular for most of the country because it's regional so most of the country has no access to it or interest in it
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:32 pm to LL012697
quote:
Outside of the upper Midwest and northeast there is no youth hockey network to speak of
This isnt true, well, at least the limited scope you suggested.
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:33 pm to WestCoastAg
Yeah, I would be pumped if Houston got a team but I'm not sure it would be a great financial decision. I still typically watch some playoff games every year and I watched part of the winter classic on New Year's Day this year also.
If they were going to put another team in Texas it might almost be better to do it in Austin where there aren't major pro sports and there's a ton of transplants. They would need an arena though
If they were going to put another team in Texas it might almost be better to do it in Austin where there aren't major pro sports and there's a ton of transplants. They would need an arena though
This post was edited on 3/25/15 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:38 pm to barry
Braves in 12th at $1.15 billion with no deep playoff run since the late 90's
fricking Liberty Media
fricking Liberty Media
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:53 pm to kilo
Where am I missing? Keep in mind I didn't say that youth hockey doesn't exist anywhere, just that its a very niche sport elsewhere. For example, when I lived in Minnesota hockey was played at the high school level, and most schools had their own ice arena. Where else outside of the two regions I mentioned does hockey have that level of commitment at the youth/amateur level? I'm genuinely asking because I have never seen it
ETA I guess I also should add other cold weather locales like Colorado and Alaska. This map does a good job showing where D1 hockey players come from,and where the hockey programs are located, theres a clear trend showing that it's very northern/northeastern centric
ETA I guess I also should add other cold weather locales like Colorado and Alaska. This map does a good job showing where D1 hockey players come from,and where the hockey programs are located, theres a clear trend showing that it's very northern/northeastern centric
This post was edited on 3/25/15 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 3/25/15 at 3:56 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
i think Houston is large enough to support a team regardless honestly. people seem to forget the kings were one of the next six and that they've been around since the late 60s. they aren't this 1990s expansion that has fumbled and bumbled its way to existence 20 years later. if LA has been able to support the kings, with no success whatsoever until these past three years, since the late 60s with the lakers, the dodgers, the rams, the raiders in the 80s, USC, and UCLA as competition, I think Houston could do so as well
This post was edited on 3/25/15 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 3/25/15 at 4:01 pm to WestCoastAg
Cardinals 1.4billion
Lol, the purchase that keeps on paying.
Stupid arse Busch the 3rd was a jerkoff, who got rid of baseball team, tried to close grants farm, and was just was a total jackass. He wanted nothing to do with Brewery owning the Cardinals.
He sold team and both parking garages for 150mil to Bill dewitt. BDW sold the 2 garages for 40mil , and was into the Team for 110Mil.
Nice ROI
Lol, the purchase that keeps on paying.
Stupid arse Busch the 3rd was a jerkoff, who got rid of baseball team, tried to close grants farm, and was just was a total jackass. He wanted nothing to do with Brewery owning the Cardinals.
He sold team and both parking garages for 150mil to Bill dewitt. BDW sold the 2 garages for 40mil , and was into the Team for 110Mil.
Nice ROI
Posted on 3/25/15 at 4:04 pm to barry
Wait, this board tells me that baseball is dead.
I mean, that's proven by the sold out crowds at SPRING TRAINING games.
I mean, that's proven by the sold out crowds at SPRING TRAINING games.
Posted on 3/25/15 at 4:22 pm to barry
But I thought baseball was dead 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News