Which is more impressive...

[dowling25]

Which is more impressive the 460 or whatever consecutive sell outs for Boston, or the 250 consecutive sell outs for Green Bay Packers???

 

I have reasons for both but my friends are arguing about it and wanted to see what you guys thought!

[See Red]

Equally impressive.

 

Green Bay because it spans over more time -- bad seasons included, and it's a larger stadium.

 

The Red Sox because there's 81 home games in a season -- and the fact that so few teams have proven capable of doing it.

[Gom]

I think it has to be Green Bay. Not only is it over more seasons, but the fact that the Red Sox have the smallest park in the majors is also a factor. Put the Sox in a 50k+ and no way on earth they sell out in 2005.

[Cocos Disciples]

I think it has to be Green Bay. Not only is it over more seasons' date=' but the fact that the Red Sox have the smallest park in the majors is also a factor. Put the Sox in a 50k+ and no way on earth they sell out in 2005.[/quote']

 

2005 is when it became the cool thing to go to games. They may have sold em all.

[TheKilo]

The Red Sox do not have the smallest park in the major leagues.

 

 

Besides, if the stadium was larger, ticket prices would go down, meaning more people would attend games.

[HeadOfSoxNation]

The Red Sox do not have the smallest park in the major leagues.

 

 

Besides, if the stadium was larger, ticket prices would go down, meaning more people would attend games.

 

What is smaller?

 

I know Oakland decided to stop selling the top level seats...but that's because they weren't selling them anyways. To my knowledge, Fenway Park has the smallest seating capacity and the highest ticket prices in all of baseball.

[BoSox21]

I'd probably say the Red Sox

 

a home game in Green Bay is always an event. a Thursday afternoon game at Fenway against the Royals isn't an event

[TheKilo]

What is smaller?

 

I know Oakland decided to stop selling the top level seats...but that's because they weren't selling them anyways. To my knowledge, Fenway Park has the smallest seating capacity and the highest ticket prices in all of baseball.

 

Oakland.

[BoSox21]

I think PNC Park in Pittsburgh is smaller too

[Paradisecity]

I'd probably say the Red Sox

 

a home game in Green Bay is always an event. a Thursday afternoon game at Fenway against the Royals isn't an event

 

 

...in april...in the rain.

[Gom]

Besides, if the stadium was larger, ticket prices would go down, meaning more people would attend games.

Illogical.

[TheKilo]

Illogical.

 

Dude, it's simple economics.

 

People are willing to pay the most expensive tickets in all of baseball, and have bought EVERY ONE FOR 456+ games.

 

The supply is limited. The demand is tremendous and has resulted in a shortage (there aren't enough seats to satisfy demand). Therefore the cost of the good, the ticket, is very high.

 

By making the stadium larger, you are increasing the supply of tickets. You are looking to satisfy some of the extra demand for seats. If the supply increases, the price will decrease (maybe not right away, but eventually) to meet the market's equilibrium point.

[26 to 6]

I think PNC Park in Pittsburgh is smaller too

The capacity of PNC is 38,496. The capacity of Fenway in 2008 is 37,400 at night and 36,984 during the day. The capacity of the Coliseum for baseball games is 35,067, although that's without the upper deck, so I think it's unfair to consider this the smallest ballpark (in terms of seating capacity, not size) in baseball as that was their choice and if they had the demand or desire to they could quickly and easily increase the capacity by thousands. Fenway wins.

 

The Red Sox do not have the smallest park in the major leagues.

 

 

Besides, if the stadium was larger, ticket prices would go down, meaning more people would attend games.

See above, take it how you want it.

 

And although that would seem to make sense about the reduced ticket prices with increased capacity, that just isn't the case. Think about it. First, look at Yankee Stadium for one and the prices we have to pay. Just because it holds/held 57,000 and change doesnt mean thatthe prices go down, in factthey go up every year. And if Fenway were to significantly increase it's capacity, or move into a bigger ballpark prices definitely wouldn't go down for a couple of reasons. A) they would need to recoup what they spent on the renovation and addition/buliding of the new stadium, B ) they would still sell out due to such large demand, and would have no reason to lower prices, and C) they're a winning team and people pay to see winning baseball. Those are just some of the reasons we could list. When they built the Monster seats or the roof seats did prices go down? No, they went up I believe.

[TheKilo]

The capacity of PNC is 38' date='496. The capacity of Fenway in 2008 is 37,400 at night and 36,984 during the day. The capacity of the Coliseum for baseball games is 35,067, although that's without the upper deck, so I think it's unfair to consider this the smallest ballpark (in terms of seating capacity, not size) in baseball as that was their choice and if they had the demand or desire to they could quickly and easily increase the capacity by thousands. Fenway wins. [/quote']

 

You're arguing the way things could be, but that's not the way they are. Right now, Fenway does not have the smallest seating capacity of the MLB ballparks.

 

 

 

And although that would seem to make sense about the reduced ticket prices with increased capacity, that just isn't the case. Think about it. First, look at Yankee Stadium for one and the prices we have to pay. Just because it holds/held 57,000 and change doesnt mean thatthe prices go down, in factthey go up every year.

 

Good point. The Yankees have a much larger payroll than the Red Sox do, however, and the price per ticket is still lower than that of Fenway.

 

 

And if Fenway were to significantly increase it's capacity, or move into a bigger ballpark prices definitely wouldn't go down for a couple of reasons. A) they would need to recoup what they spent on the renovation and addition/buliding of the new stadium

 

Or they could finance it publicly, like another team...

 

B ) they would still sell out due to such large demand, and would have no reason to lower prices

 

I addressed this in my last post. They would not decrease right away but due to the unstable nature of the economy and Red Sox tickets being a luxury instead of a necessity, I feel you would see the market correct itself. It might take a few seasons, though.

 

and C) they're a winning team and people pay to see winning baseball. Those are just some of the reasons we could list. When they built the Monster seats or the roof seats did prices go down? No, they went up I believe.

 

If those seats weren't built the existing seats prices would have been even higher, IMO. The demand was too high.

[dowling25]

I think that to have one game a week for only 8 games a season is not as impressive as 81 games in a season and doing it during the day and work week. Football is Sunday when no one is working or Monday night when again no one is working.

 

1/8 to f*** up or 1/81 to mess up. Clearly it is easier to screw up for the 1/81

 

The 30 year or whatever it is for the Packers is impressive gotta say that. However, for a baseball team to do it is more impressive imo.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/previe...ory?id=3530077

In just that 10 NFL teams with the "best fans" The Redskins, Steelers, Broncos all have longer streaks then the Packers streak. Therefore I would tend to think it is easier for NFL teams to sell out if 4 teams can do that many, and only 2 baseball teams have gone over 450. I don't know what other streaks in baseball have come to cause I can't find it on the internet but I think it would be interesting to see.

 

Therefore Boston streak>Packer streak

[Gom]

I would agree with you Kilo if Fenway held 50K+. However, it doesn't even hold 40K. The less seats you have, the easier it is to sell out. The less games you have, the easier it is to sell out.

[TheKilo]

By your logic, Oakland should sell out every game.

[Gom]

What's Oakland's seating capacity? What was it before they closed the upper deck? The idea is that with less seats, you chance to sell out increases. Are you debating this logic?

[redsoxrules]

How many fans does packer stadium hold? 60,000?

I'd say the redsox one is more impressive

 

8 games X 60,000 = 480,000

81 gamesX 38,000 =3,078,000

 

its much easier to fill out 8 games in a year compared to 81

also I can see redsox being sold out for at least another few years or so

 

and also as mentioned its way easier to fill out a stadium on a sunday than a weekday

[Gom]

This is the most ridiculous comparison I've seen in a while.

 

Fine, Red Sox fans...you win. Whatever.

 

The truth be told, the Packers are going on how many years? The fact is that through thick and thin, good teams or bad, they sell out. Watch what happens if the Red Sox finish 3rd or 4th for two or three years in a row. Same with any baseball team. The dynamics of football and baseball are different. You're really not comparing evenly. It's like saying a gold medal in track is harder to accomplish than a gold medal in gymnastics.

[TheKilo]

I agree, Packer fans are the best evAr

[Gom]

Glad you agree, you sarcastic son of a bitch.

 

Do you need to feel like the Red Sox are the greatest thing since sliced bread? Does it validate you somehow? By being a part of the Red Sox Nation, do you feel superior to the cheeseheads? Does your girl call out your best friend's name in bed?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

[See Red]

This is the most ridiculous comparison I've seen in a while.

 

Fine, Red Sox fans...you win. Whatever.

 

The truth be told, the Packers are going on how many years? The fact is that through thick and thin, good teams or bad, they sell out. Watch what happens if the Red Sox finish 3rd or 4th for two or three years in a row. Same with any baseball team. The dynamics of football and baseball are different. You're really not comparing evenly. It's like saying a gold medal in track is harder to accomplish than a gold medal in gymnastics.

 

The Broncos sold out every game over a 36 year stretch. That was as of 2006... I'm not sure if that streak is still active -- I would assume it is considering I haven't seen a single Broncos home game blacked out and there's such a long wait for season tickets. The point is, it's not that impressive in the NFL. Teams sellout every week -- it's more notable when a team doesn't sell out. In fact, well over 90% of NFL games are sold out. I would guess there may have been a dozen non sellouts last season -- with the majority of them belonging to the Jaguars.

[TheKilo]

Glad you agree, you sarcastic son of a bitch.

 

Do you need to feel like the Red Sox are the greatest thing since sliced bread? Does it validate you somehow? By being a part of the Red Sox Nation, do you feel superior to the cheeseheads? Does your girl call out your best friend's name in bed?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

I'm a Packers fan?

[dreilly]

Sorry , Packers Suck. Just had to add that.

[CrespoBlows]

Illogical.

 

Logic fail. Again.

 

More supply = lower costs.

 

Lower costs = more demand.

 

The Red Sox already sell more tickets than Fenway actually holds. If it held 50,000 it would sell out easily.

[26 to 6]

You're arguing the way things could be, but that's not the way they are. Right now, Fenway does not have the smallest seating capacity of the MLB ballparks.

That's by design though. The A's reduced their capacity because of their pathetic drawing ability, so that it would be easier to get a sellout. Let's face it, the capacity of that park is not 35,067. If 38,000 or 40,000 people wanted to go watch an A's game you think the A's would turn them away, or open up a section in the upper deck? Sometimes I think you're so concerned with being right you'll twist your arguements and make them so silly and ridiculous so that in your eyes your still right.

[26 to 6]

Logic fail. Again.

 

More supply = lower costs.

 

Lower costs = more demand.

 

The Red Sox already sell more tickets than Fenway actually holds. If it held 50,000 it would sell out easily.

Exactly. So if it's gonna sell out anyway even with more seats, why would they reduce the ticket prices with the hypothetical addition of those added seats.

[TheKilo]

Exactly. So if it's gonna sell out anyway even with more seats' date=' why would they reduce the ticket prices with the hypothetical addition of those added seats.[/quote']

 

Initially, yes, but the market would correct itself.

[TheKilo]

Sorry ' date=' Packers Suck. Just had to add that.[/QUOTe']

 

lol, ok.