Tweet
I read this column in last week's paper by Tribune Media baseball writer Phil Rogers. He's advocating getting rid of the requirement that every team must have at least one All Star Representative. Nothing particularly new there; we hear that debate every July.
Most curious to me, however, is his logic. I'll give you a peak:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
It's time to quit forcing at least one All-Star from every team
By Phil Rogers
Chicago Tribune
June 30, 2012
Suck it in, MLB. It's time to squeeze into those pants you take off the hanger once a year.
You wouldn't think a 34-man All-Star roster would be the equivalent of skinny jeans. But when you examine the process that will lead to the teams from the National and American leagues that will play July 10 in Kansas City, you realize that, once again, a price will be paid for not giving this more thought all year.
****
Let's get rid of the every team-gets-a-guy rule. It worked before the MLB package and the MLB Network, before everyone played fantasy baseball, but fans follow 30 teams now, not just the one in their markets.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________-
I can't say that I agree. Is Rogers saying that there is no such thing as home team loyalty anymore? That because you have cable TV and fantasy baseball leagues, you don't assign yourself to one or two particular teams to follow closely?
I think that's ridiculous. Fantasy league participants are still a small minority of total baseball fans, and even for those who do play fantasy ball, they don't uproot loyalty to an actual team just because they have a fantasy team. No one's going to throw a parade for a random guy who wins his fantasy league, but if the team in his city wins the World Series, you are guaranteed there will be a parade witnessed by thousands.
And very few people subscribe to the MLB package, and those who do probably do so for the benefit of following one particular team, say a team they followed growing up but they've since moved away.
I would love to know your thoughts on both the one player for every team All Star requirement as well as Roger's logic (or lack thereof). Have baseball fans actually lost team loyalty? I'm very skeptical.
Most curious to me, however, is his logic. I'll give you a peak:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
It's time to quit forcing at least one All-Star from every team
By Phil Rogers
Chicago Tribune
June 30, 2012
Suck it in, MLB. It's time to squeeze into those pants you take off the hanger once a year.
You wouldn't think a 34-man All-Star roster would be the equivalent of skinny jeans. But when you examine the process that will lead to the teams from the National and American leagues that will play July 10 in Kansas City, you realize that, once again, a price will be paid for not giving this more thought all year.
****
Let's get rid of the every team-gets-a-guy rule. It worked before the MLB package and the MLB Network, before everyone played fantasy baseball, but fans follow 30 teams now, not just the one in their markets.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________-
I can't say that I agree. Is Rogers saying that there is no such thing as home team loyalty anymore? That because you have cable TV and fantasy baseball leagues, you don't assign yourself to one or two particular teams to follow closely?
I think that's ridiculous. Fantasy league participants are still a small minority of total baseball fans, and even for those who do play fantasy ball, they don't uproot loyalty to an actual team just because they have a fantasy team. No one's going to throw a parade for a random guy who wins his fantasy league, but if the team in his city wins the World Series, you are guaranteed there will be a parade witnessed by thousands.
And very few people subscribe to the MLB package, and those who do probably do so for the benefit of following one particular team, say a team they followed growing up but they've since moved away.
I would love to know your thoughts on both the one player for every team All Star requirement as well as Roger's logic (or lack thereof). Have baseball fans actually lost team loyalty? I'm very skeptical.