MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W117814413

Baseball's Contraction Pains. (Articles)

2003· article· en· W117814413 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul D. Staudohar, Franklin Lowenthal

Notice bibliographique

RevueNine · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueAmerican Sports and Literature
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLeagueGrievanceNegotiationArbitrationPoliticsFranchiseAbandonment (legal)Political scienceBusinessLawMarketing
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

On November 6, 2001, owners of Major League baseball teams voted 28-2 in favor of eliminating two teams by start of 2002 season. The vote generated a welter of controversy, nearly all in opposition to plan. Although legal roadblocks quashed timely implementation of proposal, contraction remains a lively future option. This paper examines key economic, legal, and political aspects of contraction. What teams are most likely to be affected, and how would remaining teams gain? Will a bill in Congress remove a part of baseball's antitrust exemption, and what is effect of court decisions in Minnesota and Florida? What is impact of an arbitration decision on a grievance filed by Major League Baseball Players Association? Also of interest are outcomes that may result from contraction. How, for example, will players whose jobs have been lost be made available to other teams? What influence does contraction have on negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between owners and players? BACKGROUND Over years Major League Baseball (MLB) has had numerous franchise sales, relocations, and additions through expansions. (1) Four new franchises were added by MLB in 1990S. Since 1901, however, when American League was formed, there has not been a franchise abandonment. (2) In contrast fourteen NBA franchises were dissolved from 1946 to 1959, NFL lost thirty-eight franchises from 1920 to 1959, and NHL shed six franchises from 1917 to 1979. (3) Thus, for over a hundred years in baseball, and from two to four decades in other professional team sports, no franchises have been eliminated. Instead number of sports franchises has expanded significantly in recent years, perhaps by too much. Should MLB eliminate teams, it would not be surprising if other overexpanded sports leagues were to do same. This would end a long period of growth, and emphasis would shift from quantity to quality and greater financial stability. When MLB commissioner Bud Selig announced owners' vote, he did not specify two teams, saying only that the teams to be contracted have a long record of failing to generate enough revenues to operate a viable major-league franchise. (4) Because owners who voted against contraction were Jeffrey Loria of Montreal Expos and Carl Pohiad of Minnesota Twins, speculation focused on their teams as ones to be eliminated. As events unfolded other teams were identified as candidates for elimination, apparently for subsequent years, with a likely total of four subtracted teams over a two- to three-year period. ECONOMIC RATIONALE As shown in Table 1, Montreal and Minnesota were franchises with lowest estimated values in 2001. Other low-ranked franchises that are considered candidates for elimination include Tampa Bay Devil Rays, Kansas City Royals, and Florida Marlins. As indicated in table, each of these teams lost money in 2001, and amount of losses far exceeded league average. Whether to eliminate a franchise can be viewed as a capital budgeting decision based on models that include time value of money. Using net present method it can be shown that contraction is a sound course of action for owners functioning as a league or single business entity. The financial impact of contraction will be different for each of owners of remaining twenty-nine (or twenty-eight) teams; exact impact on each is impossible to predict since it is unknown how revenue sharing will be revised among surviving teams once contraction occurs. Since we cannot ascertain future cash flows for each of these teams, it is impossible to use a capital budgeting model to formulate a decision for each of these teams. Instead we will consider remaining twenty-nine (or twenty-eight) teams to constitute a single business entity, and we will analyze contraction decision as one that is made by this business entity (for example, we could consider MLB to be a partnership with twenty-eight partners buying out other two partners). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,095
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,316

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0040,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0950,030

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,198
Écart entre enseignants0,186 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNineMême sujetAmerican Sports and LiteratureTravaux en français237 207