No it isn't. You could measure parity in each league via standard deviations in goal differentials over multiple seasons. That part is actually easier to measure objectively than to compare the LA Galaxy with Dynamo Kyiv. Taking the Ukraine example, there are three teams in the league with +20 GDs this year after less than 20 games. Everyone else in the league has a GD no better than +5. Last season, there were four "good" teams (GD above +7 for a 30 game season). I think you'd be a fool to believe that anyone in that league outside of Shaktar, Dynamo, Metalist, or maybe, at the outside, Dnipro is any better than an MLS team, and it wouldn't be very surprising if they were worse. I'd lay about 8 or 10 to 1 odds on the 14/15/16th best MLS teams being better than Ukrainian counterparts, Oleksandria, Zorya, and Obolon. who have a -1.0 GD per game. (As compared to the worst MLS teams, who were only about -0.6 GD/G)
La Liga oh per game, that would mean that the worst MLS club Whitecaps is better than Real Sociedad (-1.14), Sporting Gijon (-0.85), Racing Santander (-0.71) and at the same level as Villareal (-0.6). I Got it.
That Brazil team at the 1996 Olympics was a pretty damned worthy one. Roberto Carlos, Aldair, Ze Maria, Juninho, Flavio Conceicao, Rivaldo, Bebeto, Ronaldo. 16 goals in six games. Lost a 4-3 semifinal in overtime. Can't fault people for going to see them.
Of course, that's the point. It's easier to judge the parity level of a league objectively than it is to compare the best of one league vs the best of another. You know the Spanish league is better than MLS, but there's no number you can really put to it. You can put a number to the parity level. You know the Whitecaps are closer to the Galaxy than Gijon is to Barcelona.
And Why not they don't. Again, arena size doesn't indicate maximum capacity. The first NHL Winter Classic held 70,000 people at Ralph Wilson where the Bills play. The one this year held around 45,000 at Citizens Bank. Why doesn't the NHL build arena's accordingly then? You have siteline issues, and atmosphere. Those are special circumstances. So your saying you can't have the NHL and NBA hold special events in arenas and stadiums that aren't specific to their sport without someone saying "Why don't they just build a stadium holding 40,000 people?"
Wow, you're more than a day late and a dollar short. You're not too bright either. What you quoted, you also forgot to leave in context. You also failed to read the rest of the discussion as your "sight line and atmosphere" issues were talked about. More to the point though, I was responding to comments about the Pistons playing in a NBS (non basketball specific) arena regularly ... IE, NOT A ONE OFF. If they could draw that regularly <------ ... or PER GAME, like he was saying ..... then why not build your arena accordingly ? Lrn2reed
No one ever said that the NBA can draw that REGULARLY especially with +66 games. Just like the Winter Classic is a one time event. Doing that for every game isn't going to draw crowds like that regularly. Now does that answer your question as to why NBA teams don't build arenas with a larger maximum capacity? Maybe you also need to learn that money doesn't grow on trees, and not all NBA teams can build arenas as they please.
NO, you didn't answer anything. In fact, I'm not sure why you even made a comment at all. The discussion (as it was when I made my comment that you quoted) involved the Pistons of the 80's REGULARLY DRAWING THOSE CROWDS. You took that and the popped off about the NHL classic and one offs. We were talking about A and you're over here on B. You need to learn to follow a conversation before joining it.
One more thing we could say in favor of the NBA and NHL; if they really wanted to be the "3rd most attended" pro league all they would have to do is contract, take away the bottom 10 teams in the NBA (for 20 total) and they would probably have a 19K+ average attendance. NHL about the same
You need to maybe learn to read. Like I said, MLS drawing larger crowds means nothing when the ARENAS ARE SMALLER. and guess what, when basketball and hockey teams DO play in outdoor stadiums, they still manage to beat out MLS teams. Regularly drawing those crowds? maybe you need to learn some math as well. there aren't too many basketball stadiums that hold 60,000+ people. and i don't know if you know this, but money doesn't grow on trees, saying "well then NBA teams should just go ahead and play in 60,000 capacity stadiums" is pretty silly.
For one offs, of course they do. Although that Beckham/Angel showdown a few years ago had plenty of butts in the seats. There have been other one offs that drew quite well also, but this isn't the point. YES, REGULARLY DRAWING THESE CROWDS. No shit Sherlock, there aren't basketball stadiums that hold 60K+ .... and here is the crux of your misunderstanding about the discussion. The point about the Pistons (that I commented on with the building the stadiums post) was that they were drawing 25+ regularly at a non basketball specific arena. <---- NOT your 60K+ one off or special game examples. Those are two separate things that you're trying to fit into one point. Can the NBA or NHL draw 45-60K for a "Winter Classic" or some other special event game ? Absolutely. Can they regularly draw that crowd ? Absolutely not. However, the MLS can draw that for certain matches as well. Yet, they aren't all housed in facilities (save for one) that can fit that crowd. My comment was directed at the 25-30K that the Pistons were drawing regularly in the 80's at the Silverdome. When they built their arena they built it for 20-22K rather than the size of the crowd they were regularly drawing at the time. People want to talk about smaller arenas for basketball when comparing attendance numbers ... YET, basketball teams (as evidenced by the Pistons) have built arenas well below the crowds they were drawing at the time of construction. I asked the question: Why didn't they build accordingly. and here is your Lrn2reed portion ... build accordingly .... you really need to understand what that means. I never, ever said they should just go ahead and play in 60K capacity stadiums. That's just you not being able to read and understand what is being written in this discussion. I don't know if you know this, but for people that own sports franchises ... yes, money does grow on trees. That's why they're owners of businesses.
Obviously NBA/NHL teams build stadiums at a max capacity of 20K to stimulate demand and increase pricing. Is a give and take, the bigger the stadium the more people you can get in the door, but the demand for tickets will suffer since everyone can get in? If you have 25K demand for tickets on a 20K stadium then supply-Demand takes over with the 5K on the outside bidding up the price to get inside the stadium. I mean Seattle could get more people into their stadium and they do once in a while, but they know that capping capacity is better for them. Now obviously New England and DC do not have the same issue since they have the extra capacity but they do not have the demand. That is why MLS teams are capping their stadiums at 18.5-20K per. I mean eventually MLS teams will get to a point where they will have to make a decision, keep prices low and increase capacity in the stadiums or keep capacity low and wait for ticket prices to go up. I am sure that is a problem many MLS owners whish they had (some already have like Portland and Philadelphia). I am sure the bulls could build a 25K stadium and sell it out everygame, but they would probably have to decrease their pricing to do it. (that is now ehen they are good, not a few years back when they were crap). I am sure many owners would love elastic stadiums, reduce the capacity (and expense) to 12-15K when the teams suck and increase it to 25K when the team is doing well. There is the next billion dollar Idea
Of course ... however, ticket price isn't where you make the money in your stadium now is it ? ..... NOTHING though, beats money in hand.