Double the size of the MLB, the NBA, and the NFL and I’d actually watch that. Instead I’m just tired of seeing the same teams win over and over again. At least now, the same teams will still win but they’ll have to crush a lot of up-and-coming TERRIBLE teams too.
I don’t think the Dodgers are going to go to fewer World Series if there’s a team in Des Moines.
“ the same teams will still win but they’ll have to crush a lot of up-and-coming TERRIBLE teams too.”
Okay - but doesn’t that just make the sport less interesting?
Watering down the talent pool does make for parity. However the overall quality of the game would suffer. And there would likely have to be hard salary caps to ensure equality or it would just be a few big market teams winning all the time.
Please no! I want to see fewer NHL teams.
To be fair, it’s a selfish desire to see my team win the Stanley Cup for once, but still… I think it’s silly to have hockey teams in Florida and other places where hockey isn’t popular. The Florida team makes money anyway because fans of Montreal and Toronto teams will still watch hockey games taking place in Florida.
I imagine there is an amount of revenue that a professional sports team needs to be minimally viable, just to keep the lights on. As it is, many teams cannot fill their own arena/stadium with fans. More teams would dilute available entertainment/sports budgets even more - a lot of teams would be below the line of viability. I’m going with a no on this idea.
I’d say that contraction of pro leagues to get rid of struggling franchises that can’t spend enough to attract/keep top players is more likely to boost the level of competition.
On the other hand, there’s the example of MLB in the days when there were only eight teams in the NL and AL, but there were still perennial doormats who only rarely could challenge for a pennant (i.e. the St. Louis Browns and Boston Braves).
Maybe the answer is a (conventional) third World War, in which teams lose enough players to a military draft to allow bottom-feeders a chance at a title (the Browns managed to win their only pennant in 1944).
MLS is the only major American sports league to contract within the last 20 years. Then, they add teams like mad ever since.
I’m not sure how serious the whole MLB contraction thing was around the same time.
And MLS was very minor back at the contraction time, but they’re a step above Arena football and minor league sports
It was serious. The Montreal Expos would have been contracted, along with, I think, the Milwaukee Brewers, but there was pushback, and ultimately the Expos moved to Washington to become the Nationals.
I’d argue there might be too many teams. The fact that the same teams keep winning tells me the talent pool isn’t even big enough to support the number of teams that already exist. There are only a finite number of transcendent, elite superstar players that are more or less a requirement for championships, and there’s not enough to go around right now.
It was actually the Montreal Expos and the Minnesota Twins. Contraction was averted when Hennepin County Judge Harry Crump ruled that the Minnesota Twins must honor their lease and play their final season at the Metrodome.
I honestly agree MLB is too small. I think it should expand a lot.
However, the problems you have are:
-
MLB would be mpotivated to expand to empty markets, like Austin, Vancouver, or Charlotte. Logically, however, the FIRST places MLB should expand are New York City, Los Angeles, and New England. There are a lot of baseball fans in those places, new teams would do great there, and it bites into the market of dominant teams. The reason teams like the Dodgers can spend more than the Pirates is the Dodgers have an enormous market to make money from. So why not bite into THEIR market rather than creating more smaller market teams?
-
You cannot just expand, you need billionaires to want expansion teams.
I never believed they would have contracted. It made no obvious sense to do so. It was a negotiating ploy.
The NBA has discussed expansion, though they recently denied that it is a certainty.
The NFL has already reached a point where teams are not playing every other team every year due to the limited number of games. Depending on division and conference, teams can play one another as infrequently as once every four years. Maybe in the big scheme of things this doesn’t matter, but it can have the effect of diluting certain interdivisional and interconference rivalries by reducing the number of encounters between any two teams.
Totally agreed. I think that all four of the major North American sports are likely at or near the maximum number of teams that they can support with the talent base.
In MLB, a big part of the reason why some teams are perennially on the top (or on the bottom) is income inequality – most of an MLB team’s operating revenue is coming from their gate (tickets, concessions, etc.), and from their local TV and radio contracts; both of those tend to favor teams in larger markets.
In the NFL, in which the TV contract is purely done at the league level (except for pre-season games), there’s a lot more income parity between the teams. That still hasn’t prevented some teams from being at or near the top for extended periods (Patriots, Packers, etc.), and some teams from being perennial doormats (Lions, Browns, etc.), but that seems to be more a function of poor management than not having the money to compete.
Studies of this effect in baseball suggest the talent pool watering effect is extremely short lived.
There are now more teams than ever, and the quality of talent is preposterously higher than it once was. To some extent that’s sports medicine, but the thing is that the major North American leagues’ size isn’t really any greater than it ever was relative to the talent pool, which is constantly growing when one accounts for population change and the opening of the sport to new overseas talent pools.
An alternative would be the promotion/relegation system of UK soccer. Good minot league teams woukd get promoted; bad major league teams would be sent down. Of course, it woukd ruin the farm systems.
There are certainly not enough minor league teams, in baseball anyway. The trend has been to get rid of them… because the games are fun, affordable, family-friendly, pretty good quality; so that’s no good, right?
I know you say this a lot, but is there anything to back it up? NY obviously has supported three teams before, but would they accept a new one now? Fandom is pretty engrained to specific teams - I’d think a new team would struggle to gain fans who are already Yankee or Mets fans than they would going into Charlotte and doing so.
There is no particular reason to think they would not. Where you find baseball fans, you can sell tickets to baseball games.
The history of adding new teams to existing markets is a generally quite successful one.
No, we do not have a lack of teams in US pro sports; if anything, each league needs to delete a few teams.
I also wouldn’t mind the USA reducing its NHL teams by 2-3 and letting Canada have a few extra.