That's an interesting point, because the NY ballet audience was split then between the dancing stars at ABT and the choreographic stars at NYCB, Balanchine and Robbins. (During the dance boom, the majority of Tudor's works were already made: only "The Leaves Are Fading" and "Tiller in the Fields" were choreographed in the '70's, although ABT was still programming many of the ballets that were part of its artistic legacy during their main season.)
I remember major efforts to convince that Bujones, for example, was the next one in line after Baryshnikov, and people loved Kirkland, although her own problems undermined her career. After the fall of the Soviet Union Russian dancers again helped stoke the interest at ABT; at NYCB, there are more premieres than under Balanchine's time at Lincoln Center, except during a few festivals under his tenure, but quantity and quality are different, and the desperation with which talented neoclassical choreographers are branded "the next Balanchine" shows how little of it has stuck.
Ratmansky at ABT creating one-act ballets is a bit of ABT coming full circle.
As far as super-titles are concerned, I've always found them easy to ignore when I don't need them, and you can turn off Met Titles.
Ismene Brown posted commentary and a translation of a recent interview with Daria Pavlenko concerning pay for the Mariinsky corps:http://www.ismeneb.c..._structure.html
She expressed concern about declining standards, some of which she attributes to financial dis-incentives and how young dancers out of the school are not all choosing the Mariinsky as their company upon graduation. If the Mariinsky can't count on institutional memory and the generosity of one generation towards the next, I agree with Pavlenko that they are in trouble.