Lapping Up the Milk

Welcome to the Route 30 Detour! US Route 30 intersects at I-95 in Philadelphia and goes from coast to coast, including passing through Pittsburgh and the home of Drexel University SMT student and blog contributor, Bryan Fyalkowski (@fyalkowski)...




When Dario Franchitti won the Indy 500 this past weekend, he did what any reasonable human being would do in that situation: Pour milk on himself.

How do YOU cool off on a warm summer day?

The winner of the Indy 500 pouring milk on himself is one of the weirdest, yet most unique, traditions in all of sports. It all began in 1933 when Louis Meyer requested a glass of buttermilk in the winner's circle because his mother would give it to him to drink on hot days.

Since then, it is an expected act for the winner of the Indy 500 to drink and/or soak himself with a bottle of milk. Some dude named Emerson Fittipaldi in 1993 was actually booed for drinking orange juice, as he was trying to promote his citrus farms instead of drinking that stinky old milk.

Sir, may I drink your sideburns?

The Indy 500 and American Dairy Association (ADA) makes a big deal out of what milk is given to the winner and by whom. Each driver submits pre-race whether they want whole, 2% or skim milk in the winner's circle. And every year, local dairy farmers are chosen to present the milk to the winner. For this edition of the Indy 500, it was none other than David Forgey and Duane Hill.

Note: NOT David Forgey and Duane Hill.

The ADA actually sponsors the event and pays the winner of the Indy 500 a bonus of $10,000 if he drinks milk in the winner's circle. Not necessarily a HUGE sum, but considering it is milk, it is better than nothing. I guess the most important thing is that no driver is lactose intolerant, or else we might need some kind of soy/almond milk garbage.

Milk came to the forefront of the non-Indy 500 sporting world with the popular "got milk?" ads that began in the mid-90s. Athletes such as Steve Young, Mia Hamm, Cal Ripken, Jr. and Oscar De La Hoya were among the first to sport milk moustaches in full-page ads in magazines and newspapers. Other celebrities, politicians and even cartoon characters were featured in the ads to promote the drinking of milk to grow strong bones and increase Vitamin D intake.

More like 2,632... Glasses of milk!

Not everyone knows that this campaign was jump-started by the Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) and it has been one of the most successful series of ads in recent memory. I mean, milk is still (at least) fifth on the list of desired drinks behind beer, pop, water and juice. Then to add Gatorade, Arnold Palmer 1/2&1/2 and those Naked smoothie things to the mix and milk is like Swiss cheese.

Do not get me wrong, when it comes to coffee, cereal or Cream of Wheat, milk is my number one choice and that probably will not change. But when it comes to athlete push, I do not see milk as a swing product that a consumer will buy just because their favorite athlete has the reminisce of it on their face.

The best ever.

MilkPEP may have thought the same way, because the number of "got milk?" ads has decreased in the past few years. However, we can all take joy in the fact that this picture exists:

Yes, Rebecca Romijn is an athlete. Look it up!

Enjoy your trip back to I-95 and I'll see you next week!

Building a New Baseball Stadium: Is It Worth It?

Building a New Baseball Stadium: Is It Worth It?

This baseball season saw the opening of the new Marlins Park in Miami. The ballpark is fitted with a state-of-the-art retractable roof, a pool behind the left field wall, and host the closest seating to the field of any park in major league baseball. This begs the question.... Is it worth is? Will the Marlins see enough fans in the stadium to decide that their investment was worth while? The Marlins are one of many teams to have built new stadiums recently. Some of the others include the opening of Nationals Park in 2008 and the opening of Yankee Stadium and Citi Field in 2009. 

We will look at these four stadiums to see if it is worth it.

Marlins Park

Not only did the Marlins build a new stadium, they were renamed the Miami Marlins from the old Florida Marlins. This name and appearance change was all in an effort to rebrand the team. The new stadium cost $515 million. Although this seems like a lot, it is quite cheap as opposed to other new stadiums that have been built. Of the $515 million it cost to build the stadium, the Marlins are responsible for $155 million for the stadium, the construction cost overrun, and $100 million to the city for parking. Although the cost are reasonable compared to the market, if fans do not show up, it would not have been worth while to build the stadium. The total capacity of Marlins Park is 37,442 which is the least in the MLB. In the first year of the new stadium, the Marlins rank 14th in MLB in attendance with an average of 28,713 a game.

Nationals Park

Nationals Park opened for play in 2008. The new stadium was built to hold 44,685. The stadium cost $693 million to build. Attendance was an issue in Washington and the team thought the new stadium would be a good start for more fans to attend the games. Unfortunately for the Nationals after the change of venues, fans did not start pouring in. Poor play on the field also contributed to poor attendance. With the Nationals playing better baseball will more fans show up in Washington? This is the question that currently faces Nationals management. Another question that Nationals management must consider is whether or not the building of Nationals Park was worth it.






Yankee Stadium

Yankee Stadium saw its first pitch in the 2009 season. Attendance was far from a problem when the Yankees decided to make the move to a new stadium. In the years prior and the years following the opening of the new Yankee Stadium attendance for the Yankees is always at the top or near the top of MLB. The cost to build the new Yankee stadium was nearly double that of the cost to build Marlins Park at $1.1 billion. The team value of the Yankees puts them in a position to spend the enormous amount of money that they did for a new stadium. Does having the money to build a new stadium make the price worth while? This was a question that Yankees's management was faced with.






Citi Field

Citi Field was opened in 2009. The $850 million stadium has the capacity to hold 45,000 fans. The Mets were previously playing in Shea Stadium. The mets played in Shea for 44 years before moving to Citi Field. Shea was known around the league for being a below average facility. Citi Field is know for just thesopposite, a nice new facility. Although Citi Field is more fitting for the flashy New York crowd, was the very expensive stadium worth purchasing?








Final Thought


My final thought will go through the four MLB stadiums that were recently built and decide "Is it worth it?"


Marlins Park- Marlins Park was worth it. The Marlins were able to build one of the cheapest parks while creating new and innovative ideas. The Marlins went from 28th in attendance in 2011 to 14th in attendance in 2012. It was a good idea to make the stadium a smaller size.


Nationals Park- Nationals Park was not worth it. Although the Nationals were in real need for a new park, they should have done it more cost effective. The Nationals  reason for move was that the old stadium was not suited for baseball, this reason makes the move justified. Although the move is justified, the Nationals needed to build a stadium that was smaller and save money. The Marlins have still been in the bottom third of the league in attendance since the new stadium has been in use. For these reasons Nationals Park was not worth it.


Yankee Stadium- Yankee Stadium was worth it. The old Yankee Stadium was played in for 85 years. A storied franchise such as the Yankees needed a new home. The history of the stadium made it a special place to play for the players, but eventually it was necessary to build a new home for MLB's most notable franchise.


Citi Field- Citi Field was not worth it. It is easy to say looking back at the Mets financial troubles that spending so much money on a new stadium was not worth it. My view is that Shea Stadium which was only 44 years old could have been fixed up to provide a better viewing experience.  




The next time a team goes to build a new stadium they should really think...... Is It Worth It?

Drew Rosen

Follow @dmrosen7

Statistics from Forbes.com and ESPN.com

Pick Up the Pace!

Alright…

OK…

Wait, no…

Ahh…

OK…here we…

Ugh…

GO!

Kevin Na at The Players Championship

Sorry about that, took a minute, but I’m ready to go now! I just had to go through my pre-writing routine quick.  It’s kind of annoying, I know, I get the same feeling whenever I watch professional golf (or at least attempt to watch).

If you’ve ever watched a golfer just before he (or she) takes a swing, you’ve probably noticed the obsessive compulsive-esque pre-shot routines they each respectively go through. As if the pace of golf wasn’t slow enough, pre-shot routines are dragging out play even more. In a sport that is already calm-mannered, and tedious, further slowing the pace in any way risks dulling the entertainment that golf provides viewers. Bottom line, it hurts the sport.

Pre-shot routines typically go something like this…waggle, waggle, step up, half-swing, step back, re-grip, waggle, practice swing, step up, waggle, half-swing…If you’re anything like me, you find yourself sitting there saying, “Come on already, just hit it!”

Throughout the existence of the PGA and LPGA, slow play and pre-shot routines have been perpetual issues. Earlier this month, the age-old discussion was ignited once again, when PGA golfer Kevin Na and LPGA golfer Morgan Pressel caused a stir on mainstages of their respective associations.

At The Players Championship, PGA golfer Kevin Na was scrutinized for his painfully slow play, which included a lengthy pre-shot routine and intentionally whiffing shots just to re-set (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, just watch this video). Fortunately for Na, he wasn’t penalized, but the criticism poured in from the likes of fans, media, and fellow golfers. Na later recognized his struggles saying, per USA Today, “There’s no point in trying to cover anything up. You could see I was having problems.” He also explained that following his sluggish performance at The Players, he has taken time to adjust his routine. By his own count, he has cut the routine down to only 15 seconds (uhm, yay?).

As for LPGA golfer Morgan Pressel, her slow play at the Sybase Match Play Championship resulted in a far worse outcome. Pressel was cited for slow play by rules officials, which caused her to lose a hole that she thought she had won. The penalty ultimately cost her a first place finish as well. It was a tough loss and Pressel made it pretty clear that she disagreed. Referencing Azahara Munoz’s first place finish, “…she was definitely slower than I was,” declared Pressel. (side note: the last slow play penalty assessed in the PGA was about two decades ago)

Let’s admit it, Pressel has a good point. The vast majority of golfers play slow and almost no one is cited or penalized for slow play. While there are rules in place, the application of such rules seems to be fairly arbitrary. Professional golf has a very obvious problem that has persisted for far too long. Something has to be done before the sport suffers even more than it has already. If the fact that Na, a golfer who was not penalized, felt enough of a problem to make an adjustment to quicken his play on his own, and the fact that Pressel was penalized when plenty of others played as slow as, or slower, than herself isn’t enough to make you think the sport has a problem…how about these remarks from the most prolific golfer the sport has ever seen…

“I certainly think we need to speed up play…I certainly can see there being some type of adaption somewhere. There’s got to be some kind of change.” –Tiger Woods

@sethbreeden

NBA vs NHL Regular Season Attendance

NBA vs NHL Regular Season Attendance

As the NBA and NHL seasons come to an end for 2012, popularity of each sport should be analyzed. Taking a look at fan attendance can be a good signal to determine how popular each sport currently is. This article will take a look at regular season attendance for five major cities that have both a NBA and NHL team. The cities that will be analyzed to represent the NBA and NHL are New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington.

The Data

The table below breaks down the average attendance for each team in the five cities analyzed for the 2011-2012 season. The league rank will be a better determinant on the popularity of sport as opposed to the average regular season attendance because the regular season attendance can vary due to stadium size.

City	Team and Sport	Average Regular Season Attendance	League Rank (out of 30)
New York	Knicks (NBA)	19,763	5
New York	Rangers (NHL)	18,191	14
Philadelphia	76ers (NBA)	17,502	14
Philadelphia	Flyers (NHL)	20,433	3
Los Angeles	Lakers (NBA)	18,997	8
Los Angeles	Clippers (NBA)	19,219	7
Los Angeles	Kings (NHL)	17,920	15
Chicago	Bulls (NBA)	22,161	1
Chicago	Blackhawks (NHL)	21,533	1
Washington	Wizards (NBA)	16,728	18
Washington	Capitals (NHL)	18,506	12

What Does the Data Tells Us?

Each city can analyze its own data separately to see which sport is more popular. This data is for the 2011-2012 season so success of each team obviously is a large factor in attendance.

New York

The Knicks are one of the most storied franchises in all of sports. Popularity of the Knicks is evident with the 5th ranking in NBA attendance. The Knicks made the playoffs in 2012. The Rangers also made the playoffs in 2012, yet they rank at about the halfway point of the NHL with a rank of 14th. The Knicks continued popularity seems to be sustainable. New York has proved to show more appreciation for basketball.

Philadelphia

The 76ers had a good season that resulted in a playoff appearance. They rank at 14th in NBA attendance. The Flyers made the playoffs in 2012, yet they ranked at 3rd in all of the NHL in attendance. Philadelphia may just be a hockey town.

Los Angeles

Los Angeles is a rare case in which they have three teams playing in the same stadium. Two NBA teams and one NHL team. The Clippers came in 7th place in attendance barely out ranking the 8th place Lakers. The Clippers success was mainly due to a high powered free agent signing. The NHL team, the Kings, finished at the midway point (15th) in NHL attendance. All three of these teams made the playoffs, so what does this say? Los Angeles must prefer basketball. The long and impressive legacy of the Lakers always is sure to draw fans, and the uprising of the Clippers will lead to an interesting battle for fans in the Los Angeles area.

Chicago

Chicago just dominated as far as attendance. They ranked number one in both the NBA and NHL with the Bulls and the Blackhawks. Both teams had successful years and made the playoffs. Chicago proves to be a passionate sports town.

Washington

The Wizards had a dreadful NBA season and finished 18th in the NBA rankings for attendance. The Capitals made the playoffs and finished with a rank of 12th in the NHL attendance. Washington is difficult to analyze for 2012 because both teams had average ranks, yet the teams had drastically different performances. If the Wizards had a better year would the NBA rank be better than the Capitals NHL rank? This is a difficult question to answer, yet I could see this happening.

What Does the Data Say About the Leagues as a Whole?

This data was used to represent two entire leagues. It would be unfair to make assumptions about entire leagues based on five cities......

BUT..... I will...

Final Thought

Although exceptions exist, I believe that both sports are thriving individually. Attendance is only one aspect to analyze the popularity of sports but it is an important aspect. The NHL has bounced back since its lockout a few years back and although the NBA still had a season, I believe that many fans may be upset with the NBA. In a few years the NBA could look back at this shortened 2011-2012 season and realize that it was a turning point as far as attendance. I would not be surprised to see NBA league wide attendance rise in the coming years. The same could be said for the NHL. I believe the NHL will see league wide attendance either stay the same or rise slightly.

As far as the five cities that I broke down, at the end of the day..... some cities prefer hockey and some cities prefer basketball.




- Attendance figures were provided by ESPN.com

MLB Attendance 2012

As we roared through a quarter of the Major League Baseball season, did anyone stop and take a look at the attendance numbers? Calling them interesting would be an understatement. Major League Baseball attendance as a whole is up 6% from this point last season, which was probably helped greatly by a record breaking first weekend of interleague play.

Conventional wisdom says that if a team is winning, they are drawing fans. If you have read any book about Bill Veeck, then you would know that the preceding statement is bunk (not Bunk Moreland from The Wire). Conventional wisdom also says that if you build it, they will come. Ok well maybe that was just Field of Dreams, but whoever did say it never really did specify how many were coming. Exactly 30 Major League ball clubs built it, but the majority of teams don’t have enough people coming to fill their stadiums. Let’s take a deeper look into this attendance conundrum.

The bad are good                                                             

First, look at the standings. Then, look at the attendance figures. Now, back at the standings. And, back again to the attendance figures. If your head isn’t spinning from looking back and forth, then chances are that your head is spinning from the sheer disconnect between the two. Check out the bottom six in attendance:

Attendance Rank	Team	Average Attendance
25	Baltimore Orioles	22.361
26	Chicago White Sox	20,281
27	Tampa Bay Rays	20,162
28	Seattle Mariners	19,916
29	Oakland Athletics	18,861
30	Cleveland Indians	15,838

 Ok, now consult your standings for these six teams:

Attendance Rank	Team	Division Standing
25	Baltimore Orioles	1 – AL East
26	Chicago White Sox	2 – AL Central
27	Tampa Bay Rays	2 – AL East
28	Seattle Mariners	3 – AL West
29	Oakland Athletics	2 – AL West
30	Cleveland Indians	1 – AL Central

Essentially, only two of these teams deserve to be in the bottom six, in my opinion. The Mariners deserve to be in the bottom six because they are not very good per se. I mean Kevin Millwood is in their starting rotation, enough said. The Oakland Athletics deserve to be in the bottom six as well. I do recognize that they are in second place in the AL West and playing .500 ball, but they have already repeatedly expressed interest in moving to San Jose which makes it tough to draw fans when you have disowned the ones that you had (but that’s for another post).

We know that the Rays simply have issues drawing fans so they are in the process of attempting the Field of Dreams wisdom in building a new ballpark. I’ll only give them a half pass though considering they have been playing top-of-the-league caliber baseball for the past handful of seasons.

The lowly Cubbies in the north side are top ten in attendance despite having the worst record in the majors (as of 5/23), so why can’t the south side rival White Sox draw any fans? They are second place in the AL Central. Maybe they are solely looking at wins and losses? Maybe they miss Ozzie?

The biggest issues with the bottom six are the two first place teams, the Indians and the Orioles. I think the problem that I have with it personally is the fact that these two teams are two once-proud organizations. These aren’t teams that haven’t won in the history of their franchise like the Rays. Both teams have a young core group of players, you know, like those prospects that the team tries to sell you on for the future. Well the future is now for the Indians and the Orioles, so if they want to continue this on-field success, then they better start bringing some revenue through those turnstiles.

The good are bad

For the sake of the top 11, I will just pick out the five that I want to highlight the most. Check it:

Attendance Rank	Team	Average Attendance
1	Philadelphia Phillies	44,981
5	New York Yankees	40,972
7	Boston Red Sox	37,564
8	Chicago Cubs	37,285
11	Los Angeles Angels	33,581

In a normal season you wouldn’t even do a double take at this point; however, it is 2012, and these teams are not performing to what the fans have come to expect. Check out the standings:

Attendance Rank	Team	Division Standing
1	Philadelphia Phillies	5 (last) – NL East
5	New York Yankees	4 – AL East
7	Boston Red Sox	5 (last) – AL East
8	Chicago Cubs	6 (last) – NL Central
11	Los Angeles Angels	4 (last) – AL West

Of course I am not condoning fans to become fair weather fans and only attend games when the team is performing well. Conversely, I’m not telling fans to not attend games when the team is performing poorly. All I’m asking for is some kind of explanation, and I’m going to attempt to work out some rational thought here.

Why does this happen?

Let’s start with the teams who are performing well at the turnstiles and poorly on the field because I think they are a little easier to understand. The Phillies, Yankees, and Red Sox have been the elite teams in Major League Baseball over the past half dozen or so seasons. The continued success inherently gives off a scent of hope and strong brand association which could be a simple explanation to why they are pulling in such large attendance numbers. It isn’t even as if all three of these teams came in with high expectations and are simply in a beginning stretch of vast underachievement. The Phillies, who are drawing the most fans in baseball, came into the season with the most pessimism they have seen since maybe 2007.

The Cubs are an interesting case study in that they are a strong brand that doesn’t win ever. In fact, their place in baseball as perpetual losers has actually been what has built their brand so strong. I know, it is pretty crazy. Becoming a perpetual loser has allowed the team to develop a brand of perpetual hope which, along with one of the most historic ballparks in the game, has built a strong fan base and attendance numbers.

We all know why the Angels have able to draw so well at the box office. It starts with poo and it ends with holes. Although it is tough to build a lasting attendance affect through free agent signings, all rules of conventional wisdom go out the window when you sign a surefire Hall of Fame slugger with 10 years (maybe) left in his career.

The tough part is to explain why the teams that are performing so poorly at the turnstiles and well on the field. Typically teams that know they are bad try to sell tickets by talking up the future (ie. prospects). We already know why the Mariners, Rays and Athletics are drawing so poorly, but the other four have big time, talented prospects that are now helping at a major league level. It kind of makes your head spin in circles when you really think about it.

The Orioles have the second best record in all of baseball and they have a big time manager. The team is as homegrown as a major league ball club gets, yet they aren’t drawing the crowds. To make it even more mind-boggling for the Orioles, this season is the 20 year anniversary of Camden Yards, which they have been thoroughly promoting.

To Sum It Up

I’m beginning to wonder if on-field performance for a single season really even means that much. If the success isn’t going to be sustained and if the team is even in the realm of being labeled a pretender, then the fans simply aren’t going to show up. To draw the big crowds, you need to build a lasting brand. One that is strong enough to endure a losing season or two. If teams understood this a bit better, then I think a lot of teams would shy away from the “go for it all in one season” mentality. That risk is a calculated one that only the top prestige teams are afforded the luxury of taking because they know the fans will be back next year.

So some advice for the teams that have prospects thriving in the majors: make it last and make it count. Do not go selling them off to the bigger teams the second things look to be going downhill. Build a product on the field that will last. “If you build (a lasting on the field product), they will come.” This mentality will allow you a season in the cellar every once in a while.

Do you think that the fans in Cleveland and Baltimore will start to come out if the team keeps winning this season?

-- Attendance figures and standings through 5/23 were compiled with information from bizofbaseball.com, espn.com, and fangraphs.com.