why declining over rates?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Because the Premier League is very high standard and a social event.

Domestic cricket is neither.

And furthermore the local stars are on show at their best on a regular basis in the Premier League, while they play for England only occasionally. Australian and English test cricketers are pretty much full time these days, and it is rare there would be more than a few weeks without any international cricket being played by any given side. If you are an Australian cricket fan, why not watch the Australian team play regular tests and ODIs against various international opposition? How many times during this summer has there been domestic cricket on with no competition from international Australian cricket (ie: international cricketers available for play)? Once?

 

[swede]

english football crowds are also increasing outside the top division, where there are few top players and people certainly dont go for the standard of football. Yet some teams average more than 30,000 which is far far more than a decade ago.
Also rugby crowds are increasing with some teams experiencing record crowds even when playing virtual second XV´s because the best players are on england duty.
Indeed Leicester got 12,000 for one actual reserves match.

Crowds are generally increasing for sport around the world, not dropping because "you can see it all on tv" its simply not true. Tv can just as much act as an advertisment.
When England won in the windies last year, there was a rush for tickets to the home series
Faaip, yes its a problem if international and domestic cricket is on at the same time, so much more the need to stop these games from lasting such a long time

 

[marc71178]

15 isnt set in stone.

Technically it is, as that is the number laid down by the ICC.

 

[Richard]

Because the Premier League is very high standard and a social event.

Domestic cricket is neither.

And why's it become that...?
Sports psychology has investigated the issue, and certainly a lot of it has been pinned down to the British love of a "quick" game. So domestic football and rugby (both codes) have been the biggest by far in terms of crowds.
Interesting, that... don't know about elsewhere, but certainly with Aus it's AFL I always hear talked of as the national sport... in SA it's just the Union whenever I look. Same in NZ.

 

[swede]

I dont think its true that the british in particular love a short game. quite the opposite in fact. Britain is where the real game does best compared to the limited stuff and a 3-day event of very long hours such as the ryder cup is extremly popular.
The problem, as I see it, with cricket is not so much that its a long game, but that it has become a very long game and that not too much happens if you watch a random hour¨s play.
crowds may be poor for the county championship (but they are better than the famous three men and a dog.) The average is probably around 2,000 per day for day1 and 2 if the weather is good. Crowds always seem better on day 1 and 2, even when a thurs-sun game last season was only decided late on sunday, apparently crowds were higher on the first 2 days despite being weekdays. It seems even enthusiasts get enough after a couple of days play.
Thats another reason why increased over rates would help so much. In the 1960´s when people started having less time for cricket, there were apparently attempts made to meet the drastically dropping crowds by changing the county championship into a 2-day weekend game of long hours.
Sadly it was rejected and the county championship has now instead slowed down even more and become a rather irrelevant weekday affair ignored by most with weekends and nights taken over by various joke formats. It really is sad.
Its as if the game´s administrators are juust giving up on the real thing

 

[Richard]

The thing is, though, it's not just the Championship - it must be recognised that domestic-First-Class-cricket, even with the big names all playing, simply is not a spectator sport anywhere in The World... and, really, that doesn't matter enormously. Because nowhere does the domestic game exist on membership and gate-money - though in some places the domestic-one-day games still get pretty decent crowds, and even in the ECB National League the day\nighters on a fine evening usually attract a good deal. And the Sunday day crowds are generally better than at the Championship matches, too.
No - whether the domestic-First-Class game ever could become a spectator sport again is something that can only be speculation. Either way, it's not essential - in Australia, AFL pays the bills; in New Zealand it's Rugby Union; in England and, I think, West Indies, it's handouts from the Boards that keep the clubs going; as for South Africa, I don't know but I'd guess it's something similar. In the subcontinent I think the crowds for the domestic-one-day-games are good enough to pay the bills.