09.11.13
by

2014 MLB Travel Grid now available

One of the nice things about a relaxing blowout performance by the A’s is that I can hunker down and get some work done while the game is going on in the background. In this case, it meant finishing the Travel Grid schedule for MLB’s 2014 season. The last two times I made the grid, it took a while to get a system down to automate much of the work. Thankfully I was able to get a copy of the league’s master schedule, which made the cut-and-paste actions extremely easy. As a result I’ve finished the 2014 edition about twice as fast as previous versions.

If you’re not familiar with the previous work, the premise is simple. I’ve taken all of the team home schedules, arranged them by region, and put them in a grid format so that you can plan baseball trips next year. Whether you’re trying to do a weekend, a week, or a 30-team tour, the Travel Grid should help you pick the best dates to attend, especially if you’re trying to fit as many games as possible into a certain window.

Sample of Travel Grid poster view

Sample of Travel Grid poster view

For your convenience, the schedule is available in four different formats:

Mid-late May looks like a good time to catch multiple teams in the Northeast. All four Rust Belt teams (Tigers, Reds, Indians, Pirates) will be at home around the Fourth of July. And if you want to follow the A’s around the state of Texas, you’ll have two chances in late April and late June. The third weeks in July and August are good for a Chicago-Milwaukee trip since all three teams will be at home, and if you want to catch all three SoCal teams in one shot you’ll have multiple chances to do that throughout the season. Hopefully the A’s will still be able to call the Coliseum home in 2014. While that gets figured out, feel free to grab a copy of the Travel Grid and start planning.

—

Note: The master schedule shows a spot for a TBA game on Sunday, March 30. When that game is announced, I’ll update the grid.

09.11.13
by

Roger Noll declaration

Economist and Stanford Professor Emeritus Roger Noll made a declaration in support of the City of San Jose’s antitrust lawsuit against Major League Baseball. He also provided a (presumably paid for) analysis of the issues at stake. The following is Professor Noll’s complete statement. A PDF version is available here.

DECLARATION OF EXPERT WITNESS ROGER G. NOLL

1. My name is Roger G. Noll. I reside in Palo Alto, California. I am Professor Emeritus of Economics at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, where I am Co-Director of the Program on Regulatory Policy. My educational background includes a B.S. in mathematics from the California Institute of Technology and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. My complete curriculum vita is attached as Appendix A.

2. My primary area of scholarship is the field of industrial organization economics, which includes antitrust economics and the economics of specific industries. I have taught antitrust economics at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. I am the author, co-author, or editor of thirteen books, and the author or co-author of over 300 articles. Many of these publications deal with antitrust economics. I also have published extensively on the economics of sports, including Sports, Jobs and Taxes, co-edited with Andrew Zimbalist, which deals with the economic impact of sports teams and facilities and for which Professor Zimbalist and I wrote a chapter on the implications of the economic impact of teams and facilities for antitrust policy.

3. I have served as a consultant in antitrust litigation, including matters pertaining to sports. I have served as an economic expert for the players’ association in all major U.S. team sports (baseball, basketball, football, hockey, and soccer) on the economic effects of restrictions on competition in markets for the playing services of professional athletes, including testimony at trial in Freeman McNeil, et al., vs. National Football League (U.S. District Court, Minnesota) and John Mackey vs. National Football League (U.S. district Court, Minnesota). In Bernard Parrish, et al., vs. National Football League Players Association (U. S. District Court, Northern District of California) I testified on behalf of the players’ association about the value of licensing rights for retired NFL players.

4. Other cases in which I have testified at trial in recent years are the following:

• In re Application of MobiTV Related to U.S. vs. ASCAP (U.S. District Court, New York City);

• Reggie White, et al., v. NFL: Lockout Insurance & Lockout Loans (U.S. District Court, Minneapolis);

• SmithKlein Beecham d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline vs. Abbott Laboratories (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland);

• Novell vs. Microsoft (U. S. District Court, Salt Lake City);

• DVD CCA vs. Kaleidescape (Superior Court, San Jose); and

• In the Matter of Adjustment of Rates and Terms for Pre-existing Subscription and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (Copyright Royalty Board, Washington, D.C.).

5. In addition to the cases in which I have testified at trial, I have submitted expert reports and/or been deposed in numerous matters. I have also testified before the U.S. Congress on antitrust and sports matters on numerous occasions.

ASSIGNMENT

6. Attorneys for Plaintiffs have asked me to analyze Plaintiffs’ allegations in this matter to determine the economic evidence and analysis that would be used to prove liability in support of their claims. In undertaking this task I have read the Complaint, which was filed on June 18, 2013. I also have read Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on August 7, 2013. Finally, I have made use of information that has been collected from other public sources and my four decades of research on the economics of sports.

7. The purpose of this Declaration is to provide a preliminary analysis of the economic issues in this litigation before discovery has taken place. Hence, I reserve the right to revise my analysis and amend my conclusions on the basis of new information that has not yet become available. In particular, I understand that this Declaration is being submitted in connection with settling of the pleadings and that I am not being asked to opine on the merits of the claims. I would like to have the benefits of the complete discovery record before reaching my conclusions on the merits.

ANALYSIS

8. The objective of an antitrust economics analysis of liability is to determine whether conduct by Defendants caused harm to the competitive process. Ultimately, harm to the competitive process means harm to consumers, in this case sports fans. My main conclusion is that preventing the Oakland Athletics baseball team from moving to San Jose causes harm to competition because relocating to San Jose would substantially increase the potential fan base and attendance of the team.

9. Major League Baseball (“MLB”) is made up of thirty teams. These teams are economic competitors in many markets, including markets for players, coaches, regional television rights, and product licenses. If teams are geographically close, they also compete for attendance among sports fans in a local area. Presently MLB has local teams that compete for attendance in Baltimore-Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and the Bay Area.

10. Economics research and prior litigation have concluded that each major professional sports league in the U.S., including MLB, possesses market power in the provision of major league games in its sport in North America. Among the ways that MLB exercises its market power is by controlling the number and geographic location of major league baseball teams in North America. MLB has adopted rules that define the “home territory” of each team in the league and that place restrictions on franchise relocation. For now irrelevant historical reasons MLB has placed San Jose in the home territory of the San Francisco Giants, even though a team in San Jose would be less of a direct competitor to the Giants than is a team in Oakland because San Jose is much further than Oakland from the Giants’ home stadium.

11. One domain of competition in MLB as well as other professional sports is competition among cities to attract or to retain a team. Economics research shows that the financial success of a baseball team depends on the economic and demographic characteristics of its home territory, the quality of its home stadium, and the financial terms and other arrangements concerning the stadium. Cities actively compete for baseball teams on the basis of agreements that they offer to a team concerning a home stadium. The alleged anti-competitive conduct in this case is Defendants’ inhibition of competition and restraint of trade through the application of restrictions on team relocation which are preventing the City of San José from competing with the City of Oakland for the Athletics Baseball Club (Athletics).

12. Economists who have studied the location of teams in a league have concluded that in some circumstances a league has a reasonable business justification for restricting relocation. In particular, because the success of a league depends on the financial success of each team, leagues have a valid interest in assuring that each team will enjoy sufficient popularity in its home territory to be financially viable. This pro-competitive justification does not apply to MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to move to the City of San José.

13. San Jose is much more attractive than Oakland as a home location for a baseball team for several reasons. First, San Jose has a much larger population base, and so substantially greater potential home attendance for a local team. Second, San Jose is located in the Silicon Valley, which is the corporate home to many of the world’s leading high technology companies. This feature of San Jose is important because an increasingly important component of the revenue of a major league sports team is the sale of luxury boxes and other reserve seating to corporations, law firms, and wealthy individuals. Third, San Jose has identified and made available to the Athletics a location for a new stadium that will be a substantial improvement over the facility and location where the Athletics currently play. For these reasons San Jose is a much more attractive home territory for the Athletics than Oakland. Moreover, relocation to San Jose is financially attractive to the Athletics precisely because it increases total economic output, which in sports is the number of fans in attendance.

14. Competition in the local market for major league baseball would be enhanced if the Athletics relocate to San José. By increasing the potential revenue of the Athletics, relocation to San Jose would increase the financial incentive of the Athletics to field a team of higher quality. Making the Athletics more competitive would intensify competition between the Athletics and the San Francisco Giants, the other Bay Area major league baseball team.

15. MLB has not yet set forth its complete business justifications for preventing the movement of the Athletics to San Jose, so a full analysis of this issue is not feasible at this time. In antitrust economics, a restriction on competition can be justified only if it is reasonably necessary to achieve a pro-competitive objective, which is defined as an improvement in performance that benefits consumers. Given that San Jose is substantially more economically attractive than Oakland as a home location for the Athletics, the only plausible reason for preventing relocation of the Athletics to San Jose is to protect the Giants from more intense competition from the Athletics.

16. Protecting an incumbent firm from losing business to a more efficient competitor is never a reasonable business justification for a restriction on competition. In this instance, such protection is especially unwarranted. Since moving to their new stadium in downtown San Francisco, the Giants are among the most successful teams in MLB. Indeed, the success of the Giants since relocating to a new and much superior stadium illustrates why the quality and location of a stadium is extremely important to the success of a team. While the Giants will experience more intense competition from the Athletics if the latter move into a much better stadium in San Jose, historical experience with stadium improvements demonstrates that increased attendance at home games of the Athletics will not come at the expense of the Giants, just as the Giants’ improved attendance since relocating to downtown San Francisco has not come primarily at the expense of the Athletics.

I declare that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on September 6, 2013 at Stanford, California.

ROGER G. NOLL

09.10.13
by

2014 Schedules (Tentative) Released

Right on schedule, MLB delivered its 2014 team schedules. The season starts with another overseas sojourn, as the Dodgers and Diamondbacks will play two games at the venerable Sydney Cricket Ground in Australia. The North American slate begins on Monday, March 31, which is the first time in recent memory that the networks are bypassing a single Sunday game opener. The final day of the season will be Sunday, September 28. As usual, times for most games are to be announced, though based on how these things usually go you can guess what times the games will be played.

Without further ado, here’s the first half schedule:

oakland-2014-tentative-1H-med

 

Now the second half:

oakland-2014-tentative-2H-med

Surprises? Obviously, the A’s aren’t cursed with facing Felix Hernandez on Opening Day. But they won’t avoid him during the first week, as the M’s come in immediately after the series with the Indians, with the King likely to pitch on Saturday. Other observations:

  • Interleague matchups will be the usual home-and-home 4-game series against the Giants in June. Against the NL East, the A’s are also matched up 4-game, home-and-home against the Mets. They have 2 road series against the Marlins and Braves, and 2 home series against the Nationals and Phillies.
  • There are no truly grueling stretches of play. The longest streaks of consecutive games played are 17 going into the All Star Break and 17 in August, most of the latter trip at home.
  • The Yankees and Red Sox only visit once each, bookending a mid-June homestand.

Personally, I’m eyeing a return to Citi Field on June 24-25, when the A’s are in town. That should be followed up by a trip to Barclays Center or Madison Square Garden for the NBA Draft on June 26. Later this week I’ll put together the league travel schedule grid, which will help me (and maybe you) plan additional ballpark endeavors. Downloadable schedules are available in the left sidebar under Travel Tools.

09.09.13
by

Coliseum/Airport BART Station to be renamed

The Merc’s Mike Rosenberg reported today that BART station we all know and love (and some outsiders fear) servicing the Oakland Coliseum will be renamed.

Why? It has to do with the Oakland Airport Connector, the 3.2-mile, $484 million people mover which is scheduled to open in fall 2014. You’ve probably seen construction of the OAC’s metal guideway along Hegenberger, or the terminal just across the street from the BART platform.

Route from Oakland International Airport to the Coliseum

In order to avoid confusion among air travelers, the BART station will simply be named “Coliseum” while the OAC station at the Airport end will be named “Airport“. BART Train operators have long had the practice of announcing the transfer method to the airport when approaching the stop. Expect that practice to continue with a longer explanation (no, the airport didn’t disappear!).

On the other hand, the OAC will not have train operators at all. It uses automated people mover technology, similar to SFO’s AirTrain or driverless shuttles at other airports (Denver, Atlanta, Tampa, New York JFK). The technology comes from Austrian firm Dopplmayr. In Australia I rode the Katoomba Scenic Railway, a cable car funicular that’s one of the steepest in the world. It’s also a Dopplmayr installation.

Like the recently opened Airtrain JFK, the OAC (a brand has not been announced yet) will require a fee, just like its AirBART bus predecessor. BART estimates that the fare could be up to $6 each way, twice as much as the old bus. By comparison, AirTrain JFK costs $5 and runs a longer route, 8 miles to the Jamaica transit hub in Queens.

OAC-1-Airport

Airport Terminal Station of the Oakland Airport Connector

OAC was highly controversial at its inception because of its high cost and limited usage, but the argument that it was better to have a more efficient route not tied to surface traffic won out. Hopefully the fares will be able to cover operating costs.

Besides the Coliseum and Airport terminals, a third station is under construction at Doolittle. A fourth station at Hegenberger and Coliseum Way was considered at one point, but was slashed due to cost. Given the high fare that’s probably a smart move, though it’s also something of a lost opportunity should Coliseum City come to fruition.

09.07.13
by

Raiders want to build at current Coliseum site, whither the A’s?

Absent a short or long-term lease at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, the Raiders made an unusual request of the Coliseum Authority (JPA): they want to build a new stadium on the site of the current Coliseum.

That’s a departure from the commonly held belief that the Raiders wanted a stadium next to the current one, in the Coliseum’s B Lot. Should the JPA take up the Raiders’ request, both the Raiders and A’s would be unable to play in the Coliseum as the old one was torn down and a new one built. Of course, this isn’t necessarily a problem for the Raiders, since they could become roommates with the 49ers in Santa Clara for a few years while all of the upheaval occurred. As for the A’s, they’d be out of a place to play.

Of all the different ways we all considered how this dance could play out, the Raiders wanting the Coliseum to themselves in this way did not climb to the top of the list. If you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. What the Raiders want is what many teams want at their stadium sites – full control of the complex. All parking revenues, all signage, all ancillary event money, all of it. And I don’t blame them. If they say they’re going to put up $300+ million for the stadium, they want to ensure that they’ll get that back. Pushing the A’s out of the complex is the best way to do it because there’s much less chance of the legal (and revenue-sharing) love triangle between the Raiders, A’s, and JPA that Mt. Davis wrought.

Lame duck JPA board Vice Chair Larry Reid knows what this means for the A’s and MLB.

Lew Wolff would be happy if that was the scenario that played out. He could tell Major League Baseball, ‘See, they didn’t want us. Look what they’re doing for the Raiders.’

Exactly. The JPA knows this and they don’t want to be caught throwing more good money after bad, in this case, a second Mt. Davis. We don’t know yet what commitments Oakland and Alameda County are willing to make, yet the Raiders are making demands. At least the Raiders have put some cards on the table. The City/County haven’t. And the A’s have no interest in playing.

Funny thing is that there’s still doubt about what revenue the Raiders could generate to back a new stadium that could cost upwards of $800 million to build. Yet they don’t have to prove anything at the moment. This is about getting the JPA to commit to one team over the other. This won’t make the A’s respond with a different stance in the least. They sent a lease offer to the JPA that accounted for this. And that puts the JPA in a very, very tough position.

The Raiders have options and they’re playing this like they’re ready to exercise any of them. They could go to Santa Clara. Mark Davis is in talks with LA, despite how unlikely that move sounds. They’re giving the appearance of a team that wants, but does not need, Oakland. I told all of you about a reckoning earlier in the summer. It’s starting.

—–

Update 9:15 PM – In an ESPN interview today, Mark Davis laid out more specifically what he wants. Most interesting is the news that he confirmed the 58,000-seat capacity stadium concept.

I’ve come to the conclusion that a 53,000-seat stadium, that we played in from the 60’s and all that, is basically what our market is. We’re not an 80,000-seat stadium, we’re not a 65,000-seat stadium, really, unless you’re winning every game and all that stuff. But those aren’t the hardcore fans that are there … for us the 53,000–seat stadium is good and maybe 5,000 club seats bring it up to 58,000 seats.

Like I said, Davis is laying down his cards.

09.07.13
by

In final pre-hearing response, San Jose takes full aim at MLB’s antitrust exemption

Friday was the last day that the City of San Jose had to file a response to MLB’s filing from a month ago. And so they did, as Joe Cotchett went after baseball’s antitrust exemption. He also brought renowned sports economist Roger Noll to back him up.

The thrust of Cotchett’s argument is that the ATE is limited to the reserve clause and goes no further, citing the Flood, Piazza, and Federal Baseball cases. Naturally, that runs counter to MLB’s argument back in August that the exemption was enshrined by virtue of its long standing and couldn’t be changed except by an act of Congress. What view Judge Ronald Whyte takes when the first hearing is held October 4 is unclear. I’m eager to find out.

In addition to the attack on the ATE, Cotchett argues that the motion to dismiss the case should be denied, because the plaintiff’s claim is ” ‘plausible’ in light of basic economic principles.” Now remember that the original claim was that MLB colluded to prevent San Jose’s competitive bid to get the A’s. The case essentially rests on this particular argument. If Judge Whyte believes the argument is plausible, the case moves forward. If not, the City goes back to square one.

MLB claimed in its filing that the San Jose’s assertion that California’s Unfair Competition Law wasn’t violated because it the supposed violation was an antitrust violation, but because of the ATE, there is no violation. San Jose countered Friday that this ignores the UCL’s additional definitions of “unfair”. Historically, state courts have had difficulty properly codifying what “unfair” truly means, making this yet another test. It’s that very test that should push the case forward, according to Cotchett. Moreover, a chronology of actions/non-actions that have led up to this point was provided. They outline the various stalling measures MLB and the Commissioner’s office have taken to prevent a timely decision regarding an A’s relocation to San Jose, including Commissioner Bud Selig asking San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to delay a stadium vote.

Cotchett also brought out California Business and Professions Code section 17204, which especially points out unfair competition against cities whose population is larger than 750,000. Of course, that means the statute only applies to four cities: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco. All other California cities have less than 500k population. Does that mean anything? We’ll see.

Finally, Stanford professor emeritus Roger Noll provided a declaration of support for the lawsuit. While it probably won’t have any material bearing on whether or not the case will go to trial, Noll’s presence could become important as a witness if the case does go to trial. Noll’s quote:

“there is no pro-competitive justification for MLB’s refusal to allow the Athletics to San José…There is no conceivable economic justification for protecting the market for one of MLB’s most successful teams (the San Francisco Giants) at the expense of one of the MLB’s least successful teams (the Athletics).”

Noll is referring to the teams’ off-field and box office success, not their respective on-field exploits. I’d like to see which sports economists MLB brings out to argue for the preservation of the antitrust exemption. Then again, even if the case goes to trial, it seems more likely that MLB will be forced to make a deal, instead of the alternative of airing a bunch of dirty laundry and threatening the ATE in earnest. Whoever wins, I’m excited for October 4. It’s a step, even if it’s a halting one.

Armchair antitrust experts, have at it.

09.04.13
by

Locals share their thoughts on NY ballparks

Note: This is not a review of either Yankee Stadium or Citi Field. It is a set of observations made with others. Full reviews will be out shortly.

citi-13-rotunda_pano

Jackie Robinson Rotunda

I had the privilege of having guides (of sorts) accompany me to games at the Mets’ Citi Field and Yankee Stadium during the current trip. For the Mets day game on Thursday, reader/commenter/blogger and Brooklyn native llpec endured my chronic lateness to join me. llpec has the unique perspective of having been to Ebbets Field, then transferring his allegiance to the Mets. On Friday and Saturday, I was accompanied by my old friend Erik, a Yankee fan since the Boogie Down era whose favorite player will always be the late Thurman Munson. Both have spent numerous games at the old Yankee Stadium and at Shea Stadium, so they were able to give me insights that can only be earned from multiple trips to these venues.

For llpec, Citi Field would be great if it wasn’t such a reflection of Fred Wilpon. He joked that anyone who complains about Lew Wolff should be a Mets fan sometime – then they’d understand what a bad owner was truly like. Given llpec’s anti-Wilpon railings I was almost ready to disregard some of his observations. But you know what? He was dead on.

When Citi opened in 2009, much was made of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, the grand entrance to the stadium behind home plate. It is huge and beautiful. The problem was that Robinson was never a Met. Wilpon chose to honor his old love of the Brooklyn Dodgers and their trailblazing legend. The idea behind the Mets’ original colors was to salute the two West Coast bound teams, the Dodgers and Giants. Yet there were no tributes to the Giants to be found. And there still aren’t. The Mets Hall of Fame, a lovely room off to the side of the rotunda, didn’t open until 2010, a year after the ballpark opened. The creation of the HoF was part of a mea culpa on Wilpon’s part.

Yet there are still touches that are troublesome. Corners are cut in many places. Toilets don’t have seat covers. Elevators are small and not numerous. llpec’s visually impaired, with virtually no peripheral vision. Citi’s accessibility is poor for a modern ballpark. Most access is through stairs, either at the rotunda or in dimly lit spaces on the concourses. Escalators are present, but they require additional movement along the concourses to reach them. The single ramp in the left field corner is so far away from the normal circulation patterns that I had to point it out to llpec. At Shea, ramps were a prominent circulation method, along with escalators.

About those escalators – in the last year at Shea, a fan died from a late game escalator fall. Since then the Mets have shut down and barricaded the escalators after the seventh inning, instead of running them in reverse in the down direction. Previously they only shut down the escalators while providing access to them in stationary mode. The deadly fall may have occurred when the fan tried to slide down the rail. His widow claimed that the escalator jerked to a stop, causing the fall. There have been instances in the past involving stupid (often drunken) behavior around escalators. Still, just about every team runs them in reverse at the end of each game. Not the Mets. Wait, there was one escalator I saw running in reverse at the end of the game – the one serving the plush Sterling suite level.

Even though the stadium’s final tab ran $900 million, it sure feels a lot cheaper than that, at least in the regular fan spaces.

—-

On the other side of the ledger is $1.6 billion Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. It’s an homage to the Yankees greatness and incredible wealth. Naturally, the only thing bigger than the tributes to the various Yankee players and teams is the tribute to late owner George Steinbrenner III. If Citi Field reflects Fred Wilpon’s cheapness, Yankee Stadium reflects Steinbrenner’s brash opulence. The oft-criticized Great Hall inside Gate 6, which is full of static and electronic signage everywhere, struck me as quite functional once I ignored all the bright lights. Access to the upper levels is easy, and the place holds many of the peripheral concessions and merchandise stands that would normally clog up the main concourses.

The big video screen inside Gate 6 looks bigger than either of the Oakland Coliseum’s DiamondVision screens. The elevators are huge and plentiful. Ramps are easy to get to, though when Erik and I were leaving via the right field ramp something smelled like a toilet (and there was no restroom nearby).

It doesn’t take much for opulence to give way to tackiness. Team stores are glassed-in, mall-like spaces. Drink rails on the lower concourse are all “reserved”. There are the ever-popular obstructed view bleacher sections in center field, blocked by a batter’s eye restaurant. The limestone facade and the back-by-request frieze hanging from the roof seem like anachronisms compared to the rather stark, modern underpinnings. There’s plenty of coated steel and mesh to offset any old touches.

We sat in the upper deck near the third base line for the Friday night game, then the left field bleachers for the Saturday afternoon game. Our upper deck seats weren’t nearly as close to the action as the old cantilevered upper deck. At the same time, it wasn’t as vertigo-inducing as the previous upper deck. The new bleachers are set back further from the field than the old ones, as the Yankees have chosen to follow the trend of expensive field level outfield seats first. Because of the Stadium’s generally hitter-friendly dimensions, the bleachers don’t seem as far from the action as I initially expected. Plus the bleacher creatures are no longer trapped there since they have access to the rest of the general concourses. The bleacher concourse is not perfect, as it requires stairs to connect to the regular field level (100) concourse. The corridor behind the outfield lower level seats is narrow and enclosed, perhaps the one place that’s most reminiscent of the old Yankee Stadium. It also lacks concessions and restrooms, requiring fans to walk to the main grandstand or up to the bleacher level to get either. The corridor provides access to Monument Park, though that only occurs only before games or during tours.

Erik and I also took a tour of Yankee Stadium. The tour is less a showcase of the stadium than it is a tour of Yankees history. Our first stop was the Yankees Museum on the main (second) level, followed by a trip to Monument Park, then some time in the visitors’ dugout. The tour felt severely rushed, as we were constantly being told not to linger for picture taking except at the designated areas. The team considers the Museum and Monument Park as separate museums within the larger museum that is Yankee Stadium. When you’ve won 27 titles, I suppose you’re entitled.

09.03.13
by

Postseason Coliseum scheduling conflicts mostly averted

MLB announced its schedule for the 2013 postseason today. For the most part it’s a very tidy package, further proof that it’s better for the league to start a little early, around April 1-2, instead of April 6-7. There are always tradeoffs, such as the increased possibility of weather postponements in the spring, but overall it’s better than having the postseason extend into November. As currently formatted, the seventh game of the World Series would occur on Halloween night.

october2013

American League 2013 Postseason Schedule

The National League will get things started on October 1st with their Wild Card Game. The next day will feature the American League Wild Card game. Friday, 10/4 will kick off the AL Division Series, followed a week later by the Championship Series. October 23 is the date of the first World Series game. Remember that by virtue of the American League’s All Star Game victory, the AL representative has home field advantage, including Games 1, 2, 6, and 7 (if necessary).

Since the A’s are the only team in contention that has to worry about scheduling conflicts with a football team, naturally there was concern when the Raiders’ schedule was released earlier in the year. For the most part, the concerns have subsided. The Raiders have home games against the Chargers on 10/6, an off day during the ALDS. Assuming that the A’s make it to the ALDS, there will be a conflict of sorts in that the Coliseum’s grounds crew will have a very tight timeframe to convert the Coliseum from football to baseball (or vice-versa). Normally the conversion takes 36-48 hours. In this case, there will be 18-20 hours tops. It should be a very good demonstration of how bad the situation is for both the A’s and Raiders.

Update 6 PM – The Chronicle’s Susan Slusser notes that because the 10/6 game is between division rivals, the dates could be swapped with the game in San Diego happening first.

The Raiders also have a home game vs. the Steelers on the 27th, but that’s during the three-game middle section of the World Series scheduled for the National League park, so there’s no conflict there. The previous week is a scheduled bye week. Including the just completed NFL preseason, there will be five baseball-to-football-to-baseball conversions in a matter of three months, plus the final conversion to the football configuration for the completion of the Raiders’ regular season. Could’ve been worse.

09.02.13
by

US Open, Night Session

Thanks to a major scheduling adjustment, I was able to fit in a long-held bucket list item into the current trip: a visit to the US Open tennis tournament. Ever since Jimmy Connors’ magical runs in the late 80’s/early 90’s, I wanted to attend the Open. Until now I had always managed to miss it by a week or a month on previous NY trips. Thankfully I was able to secure a ticket ($63) to the night session on Sunday. The ticket also was for the main stadium, Arthur Ashe, which at 22,547 capacity is the largest tennis stadium in the world.

us_open-7-ashe_interior

Arthur Ashe Stadium opened in 1997

Like most tennis tournaments, there is usually action happening on several courts at once, allowing fans to move from one match to another on the grounds with little difficulty. The exception to the free access is Ashe, which requires separate admission to its all-reserved seating bowl. The US Open is also unique in that it features night sessions, a practice not employed regularly at the other three major tournaments (Australian, French, Wimbledon). During the night sessions matches are played at the show courts: Ashe, Louis Armstrong, and the Grandstand court, which is attached to Armstrong. Early rounds may also utilize Court 17, the round stadium also knows as The Pit.

Ashe is simply immense. Closest to the court, two levels of loge boxes sandwich two levels of suites. At the top of the stadium is the  Promenade level, the reserved (non-box) seating area. I sat in Row G, not even a third of the way up, and the players looked like ants. At 10,000-seat Armstrong, the general admission seating goes all the way up to within six rows of the court. Fans can easily go from the east end of Armstrong to the concourse, which just happens to overlook Grandstand.

Architecturally there isn’t much to write home about. The main courts are clad in brick façade, with Ashe rising high above everything. Tennis tournaments are planned in a festival format, where a central area serves up concessions (and sponsorship opportunities), with limited food and beverage options inside the stadia themselves. Restaurants and lounges fill the ground level entry to Ashe, but they are far removed from the action.

The broader site is the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center, a large facility operated by the USTA for training purposes. Over the years more facilities have been added, including expanded locker rooms, a hospitality pavilion, and the aforementioned additional stadia. Only two weeks a plan to place retractable roofs atop both Ashe and Armstrong was approved as part of a $550 million. The US Open has seen its share of rainouts and weather delays, so the roofs will be a welcome change. Unlike baseball games, there is little room for postponements because of the short, two-week playing schedule. The other three majors have already installed retractable roofs at their facilities.

I look forward to coming back to attend the tournament again in the next year or two. While most of the matches I watched were blowouts, I was pleasantly surprised to catch the last American in the men’s draw, Tim Smyczek, playing a fifth set against Spaniard Marcel Granollers. Sadly, Smyczek lost that final set 7-5 after nearly breaking Granollers late. Maybe next time, ‘Murica.

09.01.13
by

Stadium by committee

If MetLife Stadium is the result of two teams working together to build a stadium, the practice should be banned posthaste and forever until kingdom come.

The problem becomes apparent the minute one comes upon the stadium. The bulk of the stadium’s façade is gray steel louvers. They function to allow breezes into the concourses while protecting from wind and snow, and as far as that goes they do a great job. Unfortunately, it makes the whole place look like a parking garage. MetLife Stadium feels like it aspires to be an office building, which makes sense once you go inside.

East entry near the train station

East entry near the train station

Nearly everything inside is some shade of gray. There are four shades of gray for the seats. The columns are a sort of gunmetal gray. Walls are medium. Some of the color comes from mood lighting on some signage, which can be switched from green for the Jets to blue for the Giants from game to game. The rest of the color comes from corporate branding. MetLife has a huge plaza on the western sideline. Verizon, Pepsi, SAP, and Bud Light have their corners of the concourse. Banners are on rotating installations to allow for quick changeovers. Altogether, the place has all the charm of a brand new hospital: clinical, safe, boring, inoffensive.

Perhaps that’s the point. In order to make the Stadium appear to not favor one team over the other (as was obvious at Giants Stadium), MetLife Stadium was built essentially devoid of character. Sure, the place has the requisite suites (four levels), fancy clubs, and plenty of space under the bowl to host any number of event types. The technology inside is neat, and there’s even a mini concourse behind the 100 level for standing room admissions. Still, it’s impossible to get over the fact that MetLife Stadium is just one big soulless, brazen corporate exercise. In that sense, I suppose it’s perfect for the upcoming Super Bowl.

If the 49ers and Raiders had agreed to a co-constructed stadium in Santa Clara, it might’ve looked a little like this. I’d like to think that the two teams would do more to make the stadium truly dual-identity, instead of no identity in the Meadowlands. MetLife Stadium is living proof that technology is no substitute for vision. Cowboys Stadium is also brazenly corporate, but at least it places the Cowboys front and center. The Giants and Jets have to live with this pile of concrete indefinitely. Sucks for them.