As a Pats and Red Sox fan, I have come to appreciate how critical the right owner is to team success. Which is why the Orioles will never win, and Mark Cuban should buy the Penguins.

A couple of comments:

1. Silver clearly values the new guard over the old. The highest ranked old-guard owner: Dan Rooney, #10.

2. I find it hard to believe that 16 owners are worse than Woody Johnson, a man whose 4 head coaches have all quit to take other jobs. Clearly, the man is doing something wrong.

Uhhhh....

"he appears to have been reenergized since the demise of then-coach Mike Martz"

I understand he meant to say firing/resigning/whatever actually happened butconsidering his medical condition last year this line certainly appears misleading.

This really seems like a hack job. The good owners get a line or two and then the vitriol comes out for motivations he infers and things that may happen:

"Adams is so obsessed with one-upping Houston, the town from which he moved the franchise a decade ago, that he essentially mandated the drafting of native son Vince Young with the third overall pick. However that works out in the long run, Adams is likely to blow it after this season by getting rid of Jeff Fisher, one of the best coaches in the business."

or just plain not liking someone:
"though I'd rather eat Field Turf than hang out with Bill Polian (and I'm sure the feeling is mutual)"

I guess it is just one man's opinion but it's frustrating to read so much sports coverage with so little research. Two lines about 32 teams is a lot easier than a paragrph though.

I guess I'm not entirely clear on the criteria being used here. Is it entirely about making money? Doesn't seem that way, but, if so, I suppose I can see ranking Jerry Jones #2. Oherwise, you're talking about an owner who, while not among the worst, could have won maybe 5 super bowls in the 90s if not for his ego and allowed that same team to wallow in mediocrity for years after that b/c he fancied himself a GM. Granted, he seems to be on the right track now, but I don't see how you can have him at 2. Don't even get me started on Snyder....

The Packers have to be the #1... a tiny market and incredible world wide appeal. They are financially healthy, look to be rebuilding. I just can't imagine any owner doing any better with the circumstances of playing in northern Wisconsin.

I can't believe he's got the Lions owners at 23. Better than Jacksonville's owner? What's funny is that it seems like he's discrediting Weaver because he whines: he lists a bunch of impressive accomplishments, and then basically says "but he whines too much."

Oookay. I'd say that Jacksonville's owner's doing a pretty good job making a franchise profitable (albeit barely) in Jacksonville.

RE: 4
I thought the exact same thing about Jones. While, as an Eagles fan, I certainly appreciate his efforts to ruin the 90s Cowboys in order to satisfy his ego, I can't believe anyone would peg him as the number 2 owner in the league. (Plus it's not like his recent teams are any good which seems to be the basic critera here)

Also York should be last, no doubt in my mind, I mean remember when the 9ers were one of the most prestigous franchises in sports?

I skipped over it on initial reading to see the rankings, but does anyone else think that the opening story in this article is really, really counter-productive? Jerry Jones made his team take an unschedule 60-mile bus ride because he wanted to be closer to where he was eating dinner that night? His 7-2 team, which then faded to 10-6 and a first-round playoff loss? This is the #2 owner in the NFL?

While I can't argue with ranking Bob Kraft #1, the rest of this list does seem to be pretty, um, subjective. Georgia Frontiere gets knocked for being hands-off, while other owners get praised for deferring to their GMs or presidents. A lot of the owners are simply being judged on how well the people they hire have worked out, which is obviously a big part of being an owner, but then Mike Brown and Michael McCaskey get knocked down despite hiring Marvin Lewis and Lovie Smith, respectively, which has to count for something.

This seems a lot like Mike Silver doesn't have anything to write about in July so he decides to make up some rankings and then use it as an excuse to get some shots in at people he doesn't personally like.

Re: 8

I completely agree. It was like he didn't have any other good stories about owners that actually supported his argument so he just used that one.

It's obviously a slow-football news day. This article consists of little more than the unsubstantiated, subjective impressions of the author. In fact, it's hard to imagine how it could be otherwise.

BTW, to select Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder 2-3 shows the author's point of view more clearly than anything else. Apparently the author sees no problem with the grotesque, self-centered greed of Jones and Snyder and their maniacal rush to destroy long-term competitive balance in the NFL.

And I agree that the author exhibits an utter lack of knowledge of NFL history as demonstrated by his low rankings for "old guard" types and his gratuitous sniping at Art Modell. A more nuanced understanding of Modell would give both well-deserved praise (pioneered NFL on TV) and well-deserved criticism (engineering expansion to jerk Baltimore around, then to cynically screw Cleveland, although unlike when Baltimore was screwed by the Colts' departure and the league didn't give a sh-t, at least fans in Cleveland were given some due respect by the league).

Apparently the author sees no problem with the grotesque, self-centered greed of Jones and Snyder and their maniacal rush to destroy long-term competitive balance in the NFL.

That's really not the function of the owner of a particular team.

I mean, Ralph Wilson may publicly be concerned about "a competitive NFL", but all that breaks down to is "give me money".

I'm a life long Patriots fan who thinks that the tale of Bob Kraft as an owner is not quite as straightforward as it might look at first glance.

Yes, it is true that he has handled success remarkably well (sounds easy, but not all owners do it). He has parlayed on the field success into an enhanced fan experience by turning his stadium into a virtual Patriots theme park. For those of us who used to watch games in Sullivan Stadium (aka "The Worlds Largest Open Air Urinal") that is a fantastic improvement. He represents the organization with dignity and must get at least some credit for the high level of character that the franchise exudes.

I'd like to point out some other facts, however. At the time of the 1996 NFL Draft Bill Parcells was by far the best thing that had ever happened to New England football. He completely turned around what might have been the most pathetic organization in team sports and would take it to Super Bowl XXXI following the '96 season. However in ’96 (and maybe sooner, I don’t remember) Bobby Grier was holding the drafting reins in Foxboro. Grier’s decision to draft Terry Glenn was the catalyst of Parcells resignation from the team. Yes, Parcells acted shamefully at the Super Bowl that year by negotiating with the Jets, but Kraft, at the time a fairly new owner, had not yet earned the football stripes to trifle with Bill Parcells. It could have set the franchise back for years.

After Parcells the Patriots signed Pete Carroll to replace him. Coincidentally Carroll was fresh off of the Jets job, and no one will convince me that Kraft’s hard feelings towards Parcells and the Jets were not a major factor in hiring Carroll. Suffice it to say the Pete Carroll era was a disaster. He inherited the most talented team in the division and it eroded as it walked all over him. Carroll and Grier brought us classic first round draft choices like Tebucky Jones and Andy Katzenmoyer.

Clearly hiring Belichick as coach was a great move. However if Kraft had seen greatness in BB since his time with the Pats as Parcells assistant, why didn’t he hire him immediately after Parcells left? Did Kraft get to know Belichick better when the latter was working under Parcells at a division rival? Once again, I think that the personal vendetta against Parcells and the Jets motivated Kraft to hire Belichick at least partially for spite.

Since Belichick has come to coach the Pats its been obviously a big love fest, but everyone associated with the organization got one of the luckiest breaks in sports history when the Pats selected Tom Brady with their second pick of the sixth round in the 2000 draft. Where would Kraft be ranked if the Browns had taken Brady instead of Spergon Wynn?

Oh yeah, don’t forget about Kraft’s desire to take the team to Connecticut. Folks around the country may not think that moving from Foxboro to Hartford is a big deal, but those in Easter Mass sure think it is.

i like to think that i am not blinded by fandom but any list of owners that does not have a member of the rooney family in the top 5 is absurd.

It is hard to say for sure whether Silver or Don Banks writes a more useless column. If nothing else, Silver must be credited for being useless in a more multi-faceted way.

Aren't "William Clay" and "Bill Ford" the same person, William Clay Ford, Sr.?

Grouping the owners (Silver's rank in parentheses):

Inherited team:
Bill Bidwell (31)
Mike Brown (30)
Denise DeBartolo/John York (28)
Georgia Frontiere (23)
Jimmy Irsay (12)
Randy Lerner (21)
John Mara/Jonathan Tisch (18)
Michael McCaskey (29)
Dan Rooney (10)

Inherited personal fortune, but not team:
William Clay Ford (22)
Woody Johnson (16)

Made own money, bought NFL team:
Paul Allen (17)
Tom Benson (32)
Steve Bisciotti (14)
Arthur Blank (15)
Pat Bowlen (9)
Malcolm Glazer (8)
Wayne Huizenga (4)
Jerry Jones (2)
Robert Kraft (1)
Jeffrey Lurie (5)
Bob McNair (7)
Jerry Richardson (6)
Alex Spanos (19)
Dan Snyder (3)
Wayne Weaver (24)
Zygi Wilf (20)

Old Guard AFL:
Bud Adams (26)
Al Davis (25)
Lamar Hunt (12)
Ralph Wilson (27)

Publicly owned:
Green Bay Packers (11)

"Apparently the author sees no problem with the grotesque, self-centered greed of Jones and Snyder and their maniacal rush to destroy long-term competitive balance in the NFL."

wtf? There are plenty of things to hate Snyder and Jones for without having to completely fabricate garbage like this.

Re: 12

While some of your complaints are totally valid(i.e. the Grier-Carroll era, which we can all agree was a bad, bad thing), I think your description of Kraft is a little one-sided.

Putting all the blame for Parcells' leaving on Kraft is a little unfair. Some(maybe most) of the blame for that has to go on Parcells' huge ego, although obviously Kraft could have handled it better as well.

In 1994, there were rumors that the team was going to be moved to St. Louis, which had lost the Cardinals and didn't have the Rams yet. If Kraft hadn't bought the team then, it's quite likely that the team would have moved to St. Louis. I believe that Kraft was really the one who stopped the team from moving by engaging in some shenanigans with the lease the Patriots were under then as well, although I don't remember the details.

Kraft did want to move the team to Hartford, but he also tried to move the team to downtown Boston(and the city wouldn't let him). I think that criticizing him for trying to move the team to Hartford(all of 90 miles or whatever) when he had tried to move to Boston and worked to save the team from moving to St. Louis is a little rich. He wanted a new stadium because he knew that the franchise needed one and the old stadium was a complete ****hole. It didn't look like he could get it in Massachusetts. Hartford was the closest place where he could get a new stadium, but instead of honoring the agreement he had to move the team there, as soon as Massachusetts permitted a new stadium to be built in Foxboro he immediately went back to Massachusetts.

I feel like trying to criticize Kraft for not being loyal to New England and specifically Foxboro and eastern Mass is pretty ridiculous considering that Kraft has consistently made an effort to keep the team there.

If you want to believe that he just got lucky with Brady and Belichick, fine, but as far as I am concerned luck is preparation meeting opportunity, and somebody had to be doing the preparation.

Dan Snyder the 3rd best owner in the NFL?

Holy crap.

I guess if mediocre football is your goal.

ABW: You have it right.
RCH: You're obviously a (somewhat) knowledgable Pats fan, but the answers to the questions you pose are right there in Michael Holley's Patriot Reign. Kraft didn't start as a great owner - hiring Pete Carroll was a huge misstep to overcome. But the point is, Kraft learned from his mistakes, which many people simply can't do. Kraft had such a problem with Parcells that it wouldn't have made sense to hire Parcells' longtime loyal assistant immediately after Parcells left. Kraft recognized that he made a mistake and set out to get Belichick after the Carroll era mercifully imploded. It was only when the relationship between the Jets and Pats softened a bit that Kraft was able to cut the deal to bring BB to NE. He wasn't hired after "getting to know him better...working under Parcells as a division rival."

The tired straw-man game of "what if" can be played with every great athlete/coach/owner/team in sports history...So how good would Kraft be if the Pats didn't get Brady? Would Rick Pitino be a genius if the Celtics won the Tim Duncan lottery? Would Bill Walsh be an innovator without having that "lucky" third round Joe Montana pick? We could play this game all day. The point is, great talent wins out in the end....the Barry Switzer exceptions are actually fairly easily spotted and debunked.

While the Hartford threat was kinda turdy, that's what it took to get the Foxboro deal in place, and Kraft's personal efforts to build the new stadium and keep the franchise in NE are well-documented, as ABW has noted.

this ratings are pretty bad

Owner DVOA?
You can have an owner that just builds to win (Pitt) and an owner that sells to win (Tampa).
Some have their marketing together (Skins, Boys, Fins). That's worth a while. But they suck.

Interesting that there are still 4 owners from the AFL, but none from the pre-merger NFL.

19: great info there, but what if arguments have nothing to do with strawmen. a strawman argument is craeting a position that is easy to dispute and then attributing this position to your opponent. i'm not sure where it started, but accusations of strawman arguments have gotten out of control recently, with it often being used incorrectly.

Re: 22

There are two owners from the pre-merger NFL - Bill Bidwell (1962) and William Clay Ford (1964).

True enough, fromanchu....my bad. Unless, of course, you're creating your own straw-man argument.

The question that I want to know about is what people think of Benson and the Saints. Is this guy really the worst owner? His team looks okay on paper, and suffered an epic natural disaster.
What I really am curious about is if any of you guys would want to move the franchise if you were in his position. The superdome is ruined. The town is a ghost town because Allstate didn't pay anybody a penny and FEMA flood disaster is a straight scam, and paid people as little as possible in every case. Nobody can afford to rebuild, and N.O. looks like it is going to become a Las Vegas style casino and vacation resort. Big Business is buying out all the land.
With many N.O. residents in Texas, is it really crazy for a business man to want to move? This seems to make more sense financially than the people that moved the Colts or Browns.
I understand that it seems like a betrayal, but many residents of N.O. appear to be gone for good, with no insurance money to rebuild, and not much help that I can see coming from anywhere.
Am I the only one who has thought about what this franchise is going to do, and why it seems harsh to call Benson the worst owner in football after the Katrina disaster?
I don't have a clear opinion, I just thought that he got hit pretty hard in this article and wonder if it was justified.

All I can say is...how many days until training camp starts?????

19: Yes, I read Patriot Reign and I think that Holley simply reported the story that Kraft has come up with to explain why he waited so long to hire BB. (You may want to check out Education of a Coach if you think that BB was really a Parcells loyalist by that time.)

BTW, the thing about knowing BB better when he was in the Jets employ was sarcasm.

Re: 11, 16
Much of what I've read about the issue strongly suggests that Jones and Snyder have been powerful stumbling blocks against revenue sharing and the renewal of the CBA. They just happen to have the franchises in two very lucrative markets and they like to strut around as if all their revenue streams are purely attributable to their marketing genius.

So I don't think I'm just pulling something out of my a--. I have to admit, the thought that the NFL could morph into something like Major League Baseball with Jones and Snyder as the NFL versions of the Yankees and Red Sox is a nightmare scenario to most of us who aren't either Cowboys or Redskins fans.

I'd much rather see a ranking of GMs, and GM stats to go with it. For starters:
- VOA for draft picks i.e. the number of starts, games played, (and pro bowl appearances?) your pick made relative to the average number of starts, games played etc. for all players picked at that number.
- Player Value metrics, essentially take some stat (DVOA or DPAR even) for a each player and divide by the % of salary cap going to that player. Then measure what percent of the team is overpaid (bad value) vs. underpaid (good value).

RE: 22 & 24
Four others are Pittsburgh (Rooney family), GBP (publicly owned since 1923), Giants (Mara family), and Bears (McCaskey is Halas' grandson).

Also of note, the Irsay family owned the LA Rams before the merger and traded franchises with Carroll Rosenbloom in the 1970s. Georgia Frontiere is Rosenbloom's widow (through she sold a chunk of the franchise to Stan Kroenke in 1995.)

To 15: Bill Ford is William Clay Ford Jr., chairman and CEO of Ford Motor Company.

NFL could morph into something like Major League Baseball with Jones and Snyder as the NFL versions of the Yankees and Red Sox is a nightmare scenario to most of us who aren’t either Cowboys or Redskins fans.

What about the NIGHTMARE OF PARITY that the NHL created that ended with a Charlotte v Edmonton final...that no one watched? That set FUTILITY records in the ratings?

The ratings of that series showed how fans really feel about "competitive balance" and "small market teams having a chance". They watched something else.

Before someone says that the NFL isn't the NHL, I know. And it ain't MLB either, so stop comparing.

I don't see how Grren Bay can even be ranked in this study, neither Bob Harlan nor John Jones are owners. The GB owners are all the stockholders

31: I don't think the consequences of parity can be measured just in ratings. Part of what parity sells is hope for thw downtrodden, which eventually translates (hopefully) into more ticket sales for lesser teams -- teams whose fans might throw in the towel otherwise.

Maybe not many people watched Charlotte/Edmonton, but it probably means those two teams will have much better ticket sales for a while (well, Charlotte anyway, since Edmonton probably would have anyway).

Re #13: i like to think that i am not blinded by fandom but any list of owners that does not have a member of the rooney family in the top 5 is absurd.

You're not blinded by Fandom. Rooney's one of the most influential owners in the league, and his loyalty to his staff is not only legendary, it's been well-rewarded. I think Bowlen is ranked too low for the exact same reasons (especially because Bowlen was the guy who negotiated those fat TV contracts everyone's been talking about recently).

Re #15: Made own money, bought NFL team:
Wayne Huizenga (4)
Huizenga didn't make his own money, he married into the Wal Mart family. He's also WAAAAAAY too highly ranked. He's a walking punchline in South Florida- such as the time he gave Dan Marino a vague and meaningless title, only to have Marino give it back just a couple of weeks later.

Re #18: Dan Snyder the 3rd best owner in the NFL?

Holy crap.

I guess if mediocre football is your goal.
Actually, I think that that is, in fact, Snyder's goal. And who knows, with a couple of more seasons like last year, maybe the Redskins under Snyder will, in fact, one day be described as kindly as "mediocre".

As a Steelers fan living in Washington DC for 10 years and seeing up close how Dan Snyder operates and comparing that to Dan Rooney, if Rooney is #10 in the league then Snyder is about #1,345,679. Dan Snyder is not only clearly the worst owner in the NFL, and the worst owner in the history of professional sports, he's likely the worst owner of anything ever.

Rooney tenth? Thanks for saving me the trouble of reading it...

Huizenga didn’t make his own money, he married into the Wal Mart family.

Huizenga made his money through Waste Management, Inc., and Blockbuster; his longtime (30+ years) second wife, Marti Goldsby, is not a Wal-Mart heiress, so far as I can tell.

RE: 22 & 24
Four others are Pittsburgh (Rooney family), GBP (publicly owned since 1923), Giants (Mara family), and Bears (McCaskey is Halas’ grandson).

All correct, but I was referring to the specific owners' tenures, not the owners' families' tenures.

Can somebody get busy on the suggestion in #30 ? Those are great ideas. #36 I too am a Stiller fan who lives in DC, and I almost concur, except Angelos has to be worse than Snyder. I really tried to like Danny Boy, but he lost all credibility with me when he proclaimed that the name "Redskins" was chosen to reflect the noble aspects of Native American heritage. The name was changed from the Boston Braves to the Boston Redskins by George Preston Marshall, one of the most notorious and outspoken racists in the history of all US sports. If you don't want to change the name, don't, but don't insult us with stupid-ass lies. And his policy of not showing in-stadium replays of successful plays by the opposition has to be one of the pettiest things I've ever heard of.

dude think about this way to make the NFL, make the field a triangle and have three teams play at once against each other
sure a denver pittsburgh championship game was cool and all BUT
look at this

AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME
NEW ENGLAND vs
PITTSBURGH vs
INDIANAPOLIS

new england 30
pittsburgh 26
indiansapolis 23

nfc championship
carolina 32
seattle 24
dallas 23

NOW LISTEN
the 3 teams with the most points go to the 4 way super bowl also the team with the worst regular season record, that way bad teams at the end of the season will still have something to play for

SUPER BOWL
NEW ENGLAND
CAROLINA
PITTSBURGH
SAN FRANSICO

WHAT A BATTLE

Re: 39
I almost concur, except Angelos has to be worse than Snyder.

No argument there. I used to go to 30-35 Orioles games per year, but now I can't bring myself to go at all unless somebody gives me a free ticket, which happens about once or twice a year.

When I try to imagine what it must be like to be an Arizoma Cardinals fan, I just think of my own experience as a Baltimorean who grew up on baseball.

At first glance I thought the list was ranked worst-to-best, but then I saw Bob Craft’s name at the top. This list is supposed to be a parody making fun of how awful all those “let’s rank something that isn’t usually ranked just so we can be different� are, right? Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder are two of the top 3 owners in the league?!? Blech. That's as far as I got before I had to chew back the vomit.

40: All I can say is you're retarded... (shaking my head and walking away)

Re: 32

The NHL's popularity has NEVER been about TV ratings. So what if they went from a 1.2 share to a 0.9 share (I have no idea how close those numbers actually are, but they're ballpark). Big freaking deal. Hockey, more than any of the other four major team sports, just doesn't translate well to the television medium (while I'd argue that basketball and baseball are actually better on TV). If you want to gauge how hockey fans feel about the "NIGHTMARE OF PARITY" that the new deal brought in, you may want to look at the record-breaking attendance of most of the teams league wide.

You remember what happened to MLB's attendance after their strike? It took them the better part of a decade to recover from that. And you know why? Because everyone knew that MLB's strike accomplished absolutely nothing. Hockey fans have been screaming for years that the game needed a makeover. And for once the league front office actually listened. Thank you, Mr. Bettman!

Re: 30
- Player Value metrics, essentially take some stat (DVOA or DPAR even) for a each player and divide by the % of salary cap going to that player. Then measure what percent of the team is overpaid (bad value) vs. underpaid (good value).

That may be one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. That'd make one hell of an article. *that's a not-so-subtle hint to all the FO writers*

Re: #44.

I made a post earlier essentially about the same thing, but for some reason it didn't go through (damn FO limbo!).

The NHL's ratings weren't high, but ticket sales were higher than they have been in years - scoring is up, thanks to new rules against obstruction and an emphasis on enforcing already-existing rules. Giving the referees leeway to call penalties for diving has taken some (not all, one can never remove it all) of the acting out of the game.

It is true that hockey (like soccer, actually) does not translate well to television, and never has. But the key is that the NHL actually made money this year. That's good for owners, and good for players, and good for fans.

As a result, the salary cap is increasing from an initial $37 million or so last year to around $41 million this year, thanks to increased revenues.

Yes, the lockout was not a Great Thing, but (to quote the song) "The good 'ol hockey game" is much improved, and few fans I've talked to dislike the changes made to the game over the past two years.

Re 32, 34.

The Edmonton Oilers are alot like the GB Packers, a small market but nationally popular team.

Second, since you obviously don't follow the sport well enough to know that the Hurricanes play in Raleigh, NC, not Charlotte, you may want to reconsider displaying your ignorance. My guess is you got that from some commentary on a sports show and thought it would support your argument.
Tip # 99
Never quote sports commentators.

If you want to gauge how hockey fans feel about the “NIGHTMARE OF PARITY� that the new deal brought in, you may want to look at the record-breaking attendance of most of the teams league wide.

You remember what happened to MLB’s attendance after their strike? It took them the better part of a decade to recover from that.

That simply isn't true. '95 was down from '93, and but '96 was up from '93- both at the gate and in TV ratings- and the sports' popularity exploded in '98.

And you know why? Because everyone knew that MLB’s strike accomplished absolutely nothing.

From the players' POV, it did- they prevented the owners from locking them out in the next year's spring training.

As an aside, I'm making it a point to be nice to everyone on this board from here on out, and tone down on some of my more snide comments. Having said that...

One must be terribly naive to think the owners locked out the players to "fix the league", "make the fans happy", or anything like that. These are rich men who saw the opportunity to transfer wealth from the players to themselves by locking them out and lying to the fans and media about the reasons for it, and it worked.

The Edmonton Oilers are alot like the GB Packers, a small market but nationally popular team.

Yet unlike the Packers, no one cared enough to watch them.

Second, since you obviously don’t follow the sport well enough to know that the Hurricanes play in Raleigh, NC, not Charlotte, you may want to reconsider displaying your ignorance.

I stand corrected.

Having said that, what city they play in is IMMATERIAL. The point is that more people watched the friggin' XFL than the Stanley Cup finals. Nice job indeed, Mr. Bettman.

My guess is you got that from some commentary on a sports show and thought it would support your argument.

Now you're parading your ignorance. :)

Exactly what argument am I making? Two teams from relatively small cities played in the Stanley Cup Finals, and it did record low ratings. That's a fact, not an argument.

But the key is that the NHL actually made money this year.

According to Forbes Magazine, most of the teams made money in 2004.

Who are you going to believe- the owners or Forbes? I mean, OF COURSE the owners are going to paint as dire a financial picture as possible, while Forbes is unbiased.

Having said that, what city they play in is IMMATERIAL. The point is that more people watched the friggin’ XFL than the Stanley Cup finals. Nice job indeed, Mr. Bettman.

I think there are many many factors for this, and the parity of the league would only be a small part. And who's to say that the league had parity in 05-06? The league skipped a whole season. The building of teams for 05-06 was almost like a fantasy draft, with players being shuffled all over the place.

Most leagues would seem to have parity if a whole season of player improvements and declines were skipped and half the players switched teams.

I think the bigger problem is that very few people care about hockey, and those that do probably had a hard time finding it on a semi-obscure cable channel that not every cable subscriber gets.

45: The problem with that theory is a players DVOA/DPAR metrics are affected by his teammates' performance. IE, how much of Shaun Alexander's value is affected by Seattle's line blocking, etc. Now you could look at total salary for a team's offense/defense and compare that to thier metrics, but I don't think it would show much.

Richie, I agree with everything you're saying. Does the NHL have more partity? Sure. Can the small market teams succeed? Apparently so.

But when it came right down to it, the ratings for the NHL Finals were an embarrassment. In the end, the fans didn't tune in for the "parity" they claim to want. Meanwhile, NCAA football and basketball- sports with ZERO parity- set records for attendance and ratings every year.

BTW, if you stop and look at it, there is no real gap between parity in the NFL and MLB. The NFL seems more competitive because they allow more teams into the playoffs.

You must really have something against hockey.

The ratings were not good, but they weren't good in 2004, either, and have rarely been that good for NHL hockey.

The ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals on NBC in 2006 averaged out to a 2.3, while the ratings for the Stanley Cup Finals on ABC in 2004 averaged out to a 2.6. That's down 12% - so yes, while lousy, it's not like their TV ratings used to be spectacular and nosedived into the basement. And ratings for such things always fluctuate based on the teams involved.

At the same time, TV ratings for almost everything are down - this year's NBA playoff ratings were not great despite some of the most entertaining basketball in years, and the NBA Finals were the third-lowest rated in history.

So one can't really say much about whether Mr. Bettman helped or hurt the TV ratings that much.

But what one can say is that the product on the ice is significantly improved, ticket sales have gone up, fan interest is high, and hockey fans are generally happy with the changes to the game. That is a good thing.

No one thinks the owners were being altruistic in going forward to the lockout. At the same time, no one thinks the players were painting a realistic picture either.

Re: 53
BTW, if you stop and look at it, there is no real gap between parity in the NFL and MLB. The NFL seems more competitive because they allow more teams into the playoffs.

Partly agree, partly disagree. No doubt you're right that the NFL allows 12/32 teams into the playoffs, wheras MLB allows 8/30. Not possible to dispute your point.

But consider the fact that until this year, the Atlanta Braves had won their division for every year running back to 1991. And what if your team plays in the AL East and it's not the Yankees or Red Sox? Toronto is the first team in a decade that even shows a hint of having a chance for a wild card. The AL East is one of the most uncompetitive divisions in any sport.

You must really have something against hockey.

Not at all, sir. The fans vote with their wallets, and I was using the NHL Finals as an example that parity, or at least the perception of such, does not lead to increased popularity.

Look at the NBA- we all miss the salad days of Bird, Jordan, and Magic. You know, back in the days where the Bulls, Celtics, and Lakers dominated the game.

But consider the fact that until this year, the Atlanta Braves had won their division for every year running back to 1991. And what if your team plays in the AL East and it’s not the Yankees or Red Sox? Toronto is the first team in a decade that even shows a hint of having a chance for a wild card. The AL East is one of the most uncompetitive divisions in any sport.

I understand what you're saying, but the AL East IS competitive...it's just been the same two teams for a few years.

Look back to the NFC West in the late 80's and early 90's. It was always the Niners winning, with hardly a hint of competition from the other teams. No one called for adjustments, nor should they have. The Niners had an all-time great team, while the Falcons, Rams, and Saints all went through bad phases.

Also, while the Braves won the title, the Marlins and Mets took their wild card opportunities and went to the World Series. Can't say that about the other NFC West teams.

#1

do you mean that cuban should buy the penguins so that they'll improve or so that they're sure never to?

BTW, if you stop and look at it, there is no real gap between parity in the NFL and MLB. The NFL seems more competitive because they allow more teams into the playoffs.

I think one of the big differences is in hope. There are a handful of MLB teams that have no hope to win, and haven't had hope in a long time, if ever (Pit, KC, TB, Mil, etc.) At one time, KC was the most successful expansion franchise in MLB history.

In the NFL, every fan can legitimately think that their team could compete in the upcoming seasons. Yeah, a few teams have still struggled, but is there an NFL team that has never made the playoffs at least once in the past 10 seasons, aside from Houston?

I think one of the big differences is in hope. There are a handful of MLB teams that have no hope to win, and haven’t had hope in a long time, if ever (Pit, KC, TB, Mil, etc.) At one time, KC was the most successful expansion franchise in MLB history.

I thought Milwaukee had a shot at the Central coming into this year.

Tampa has a tough road being in the same division as Boston and New York, but they have excellent young talent both at the major and minor league level.

Both Kansas City and Pittsburgh have lots of work to do. They'll blame their "small" markets and lack of a slary cap. In both cases I'll blame over a decade of bad trades, bad drafts, and poor decision making.

Still, the road to respectability is shorter than one might think. Look where the Tigers were a couple of years ago, and look where they are now.

Yeah, a few teams have still struggled, but is there an NFL team that has never made the playoffs at least once in the past 10 seasons, aside from Houston?

That's only because such a high percentage of teams make the playoffs in the NFL, which is something I hope MLB never does.

I'm not criticizing the NFL- I'm a big fan, which is why I'm here. All I'm saying is that MLB's "parity problem" is largely a myth created by Bud Selig and spread by the media.

Not at all, sir. The fans vote with their wallets, and I was using the NHL Finals as an example that parity, or at least the perception of such, does not lead to increased popularity.

But it has led to increased popularity. Popularity is not only measured by how many people watch on television - as you yourself pointed out, ticket sales were significantly higher this year. Could that not be a measure of popularity? It seems, at least, that people who are interested in hockey were more interested this year than they have been in previous years.

Now, I think an even more interesting measure would be looking at how things are next year. This year, you might have had some people that bought a ticket just to see the "new NHL" but that didn't necessarily like it. Next year, it'll be interesting to see whether there will be any increase in ticket sales as a result of what happened this year. If sales again rise, then I would hypothesize that the NHL is indeed gaining popularity over time, even if TV ratings remain constant.

T.

You're acting like the NFL playoffs are like the NBA or NHL playoffs. 8 out of 30 teams make the MLB playoffs. That is ~26.6%. 12 out of 32 teams make the NFL playoffs. That is 37%. In the NBA and NHL, 16/30 teams make it, or 53%.

The NFL percentage is higher than MLB, certainly, but closer to MLB's than the NBA or NHL.

That said, I agree that for many small-market teams, the "parity problem" in MLB is caused by owners that take their revenue sharing checks and pocket them directly, rather than spend a dime on players, and then simultaneously complain to their fans that baseball is screwing them over.

Popularity is not only measured by how many people watch on television - as you yourself pointed out, ticket sales were significantly higher this year.

I never "pointed that out". I'd never heard that before :)

Which isn't to say it isn't true...I just didn't make that claim.

Could that not be a measure of popularity? It seems, at least, that people who are interested in hockey were more interested this year than they have been in previous years.

My guess is that the lockout made hardcore hockey fans more likely to buy tickets and tune in, since they missed the game. Unfortunately, the NHL has already captured that audience. The goal (pardon the pun) is to increase the fan base. I'll agree that it's too soon to tell, but the ratings for The Finals were not encouraging.

Anyway, my POINT TO BEGIN WITH was that the NHL is better off having New York, Detroit, Chicago, etc as their elite teams, parity be damned.

You’re acting like the NFL playoffs are like the NBA or NHL playoffs.

I'm not, and I never dragged the NBA or NHL into the playoff conversation.

Apply the NFL playoff system to MLB since baseball switched to six divisions, or apply baseball's system to the NFL over a ten year period. The results may surprise you.

Re: 57
I understand what you're saying, but the AL East IS competitive...it's just been the same two teams for a few years.

You have to go all the way back to 1997 to find a season where the AL East was in any way substantively different than your preferred model: Yankees battle Red Sox, and why should anyone else even bother, they're so hopelessly out of contention.

Look back to the NFC West in the late 80's and early 90's. It was always the Niners winning, with hardly a hint of competition from the other teams. No one called for adjustments, nor should they have.

That's funny. I recall that in the early 90's the NFL made a major adjustment. It's called the salary cap. And a wonderful thing happened. The stagnant condition of the league was freed up to a significant degree. No longer could a perpetual winner such as the 49ers stockpile the two best QBs in the league at the same time for something like 2-3 seasons. And so there was more turnover at the top.

And yes, I don't hesitate to say so, I live in Baltimore. If not for the salary cap and revenue sharing policies of the NFL, I firmly believe I would have had to endure a neverending succession of 5-11 seasons with no hope of improvement.

That’s funny. I recall that in the early 90’s the NFL made a major adjustment. It’s called the salary cap.

My jaw shattered from hitting my desk so hard.

The salary cap was part of an agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL which included a form of free agency for the players. Before this, salaries weren't an issue to teams- they paid players whatever they wanted.

And a wonderful thing happened. The stagnant condition of the league was freed up to a significant degree.

What?

No longer could a perpetual winner such as the 49ers stockpile the two best QBs in the league at the same time for something like 2-3 seasons.

That's easy to say after Steve Young became a star. If everyone knew he was so good, wwhy couldn't Tampa have gotten more for him?

That's like saying the NFL was a mess in the 90's since the Patriots once had Bledsoe and Brady, or the Pack had Favre and Hasselbeck.

And yes, I don’t hesitate to say so, I live in Baltimore. If not for the salary cap and revenue sharing policies of the NFL, I firmly believe I would have had to endure a neverending succession of 5-11 seasons with no hope of improvement.

WHY? Baltimore is the sixth biggest metropolital area in the country, harboring (pardon the pun) a team with a new stadium and a favorable lease.

Re: 65
WHY? Baltimore is the sixth biggest metropolital area in the country, harboring (pardon the pun) a team with a new stadium and a favorable lease.

Not even close. Didn't have time to wade throgh the exact data, but when you look it up you'll find that Baltimore is roughly the 20th largest MSA, and even smaller as a media market, something like 21st-24th.

The most recent data I've seen say that the Ravens are roughly 15-16 in local revenues. As other teams succeed in extorting their taxpayers for new facilities, that will trend downward.

But the basic point remains--the NFL has been more competitive in the salary cap era. Revenue sharing and the salary cap have been a good thing for fans in flyover country.

Since I have nothing substantial to add to the conversation, I will state that Baltimore is the 24th largest Nielsen Media Market, sandwiched between Portland and Indianapolis.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

The city itself has the 18th largest population (down from 12th in 1990).

The confusion may come because the Census Bureau says that the Washington/Baltimore metro area is the 4th largest. But how many of those are Redskins fans, and how many are Ravens fans?

But the basic point remains–the NFL has been more competitive in the salary cap era.

The only thing I disagree with is calling it "the salary cap era". Before 1992, there was no free agency in the NFL whatsoever, and teams could keep players as long as they wanted, for whatever they chose to pay. In theory, superpowers like the Cowboys and Steelers of the 70's or the Niners of the 80's, wouldn't dominate, because they wouldn't afford to keep all of those players.

I should emphasize the term "in theory", though.

But make no mistake- the salary cap exists for the benefit of the owners, not the fans.

You remember what happened to MLB’s attendance after their strike? It took them the better part of a decade to recover from that.

That simply isn’t true. ‘95 was down from ‘93, and but ‘96 was up from ‘93- both at the gate and in TV ratings- and the sports’ popularity exploded in ‘98.

It is true. If you look at per-game average attendance, it didn't rise back to pre-strike levels until 2003 or 2004.

Re: #69- I did look at the totalattendance, which shouldn't be different than the per game figure.

People that were angry when baseball cancelled the World Series want to pretend that the game was irreparably harmed by the strike, but it simply wasn't, and the game is more popular and prosperous now than ever before.

Re: 67
The confusion may come because the Census Bureau says that the Washington/Baltimore metro area is the 4th largest. But how many of those are Redskins fans, and how many are Ravens fans?

Absolutely correct. And furthermore, the Washington MSA is roughly 5.2M, whereas the Baltimore MSA is just about half at something like 2.65M. And I think that gives a low estimate of the margin between Washington and Baltimore in potential revenues. For one thing, the mean education and income levels in metropolitan Washington are substantially greater than in metropolitan Baltimore. Furthermore, Washington has virtually no meaningful geographical constraints to its south, totally unlike Baltimore, which is boxed in on all sides. That means the Redskins have a much larger TV following in secondary markets such as Richmond and Norfolk-Virginia Beach.

Re: 68
But make no mistake- the salary cap exists for the benefit of the owners, not the fans.

On that point I think we both agree! I guess to clarify what I'm thinking (and trying to say)--the salary cap benefits a majority of fans, but in truth, the owners don't give a sh-t about fans at all. It's just a case of good unintended consequences.

Re: 69, 70
I did look at the total attendance, which shouldn’t be different than the per game figure.

Don't forget the NL expanded twice in the 90s. Once before the strike/early 90s (added Colorado and Florida) and once after the strike/late 90s (added Arizona, and Tampa Bay was added to AL, shifting Milwaukee to NL). I think that helps to explain why total attendance could be higher for several post-strike years while per-game attendance would be lower.

Re #32 et seq:

Without bothering to look it up, I'm going to guess that Stanley Cup finals ratings in the U.S. were hurt by a Canadian team being there, in the same way World Series ratings were down when the Blue Jays were in it, or even the Yankees and Mets: two excited markets will always bring in more American viewers than one. And CBC might well have had bigger audiences this year.

As NFL owners go, I'd have to agree that Jones is top-notch, right along with Kraft. He's similar to Steinbrenner- willing to spend to get results. His clash of egos with Johnson curtailed a dynasty, but there's enough blame to go around in that breakup. After an embarassing stretch where he tried to be a bit too hands-on, he has once again decided to let his football people do their thing, and noone will accuse him of being cheap

There have been times where Jerry Jones has been too cheap, which is precisely how he ended up with Dave Campo and Chan Gailey as his coaches.

The Cowboys had interviewed former UCLA coach Terry Donohue to replace Barry Switzer, and a deal was imminent- Jones wanted Donohue, and Donohue wanted the job...that is, until they exchanged salary figures. Jones wanted to makes Donohue the lowest paid coach in the NFL, and justified it by saying the Cowboys' HC could make a lot of money on the side. Donohoe basically told him to forget it.

Well, gee, if being cheap cost him the legendary Tom Donahue... you know, I can't even come up with a good way to finish this. Gailey and Campo certainly sucked, but do we have any reason to suspect Donahue would have been any better? It ain't exactly like he lost Joe Gibbs through a lowball offer. Although maybe the thing is, he was so cheap he was interviewing scrubs like Gailey, Campo, and Donahue, instead of going for a top-flight coach or star assistant like (whoever the rising star was then).

Anyway, Jones and Steinbrenner are good examples of how perceptions (and realities) of owners can change, especially as the game changes. Jones seems to have learned from his mistakes, and in the salary cap era, he may be using his big-market money to his advantage in places where he actually can, like the coaching staff and front office. In this era, that may be the best place to invest to get an edge (since spending on talent tends to even out over the years). With Steinbrenner, does anyone else remember when he was so unpopular that he held a press conference to say he'd never sell the Yankees as long as he was alive, so SNL started the "George Steinbrenner Health Watch" during Weekend Update? My, how times have changed. As baseball's economics have shifted, George has become the dream owner - someone who both has money and is willing to spend it to win. Far from perfect, of course (he's still a meddling douche), but many fans would gladly take him as an owner today.

Well, gee, if being cheap cost him the legendary Tom Donahue

Terry Donahue did a heck of a job at UCLA, his name came up for NFL jobs more than once...but most importantly, he was the guy Jones wanted!

Re: #69- I did look at the totalattendance, which shouldn’t be different than the per game figure.

As noted, you have to figure in expansion.

1993 average attendance: 30,979

1994 average attendance (pre-strike): 31,612

2005 average attendance: 30,970

Baseball has only now just recovered from the strike. When you consider the huge growth in attendance in the late 80s/early 90s, it is well behind where it should be.

Re: 58

Um...what? I'm pretty sure Cuban's been successful on every level in Dallas. He'd be great in Pittsburgh.