If the intent of professional baseball is to provide an audience (fans) with a product (game) they're willing to pay ($$$) for, thus making their product more desirable to a larger number of people, then interleague play is good for baseball. Picasner is right when he charactrizes this as "simplistic". It is. It's not complex...and it works. Why do you think it took the dumb-ass owners so long to figure that out? Now if some other hard-headed types could just recognize how simple it is and pipe down.
Now that may pale in comparison to Picasner's "proof", i.e. "In reality, the players don't like it and managers don't like it...". I'm so pleased to hear that Picasner has been in contact with with enough players and managers to make that assertion. How silly of any of us to think that the Yankees and Mets looked forward to the subway series, that the Brewers relished a chance to come to Yankee Stadium and play on a national stage, or that the White Sox and Cubs looked forward to a backyard brawl, or... . I'll just say "Thanks" for straightening me out.
As regards the managers, if what you say is accurate (proof, please) - so what and who cares? I'll bet dollars to donuts that the majority of fans (and a substantial number of the players) can't name the managers of half the teams in either league.
Reread the "proof laden" Lupica column. Notice his conclusions. Because baseball gets a spike in attendance out of them, that's why. I get it. Why do you suppose that is? It can't be because the fans like it, can it? Nope, just me and the owners.
And that concludes the 2011 hand grenade.
It's a great day for America everybody!
No comments:
Post a Comment