Parity in sports

Just out of curiousity, who here wishes sports in general had more parity? Of course, the issues may include managment, small market vs big market teams etc, but we all can point to a sport and know that a few teams will have no chance and those that always do and always will.

Having said that, I think that a few sports do a pretty good job in term of parity. The NFL is a prime example. With salary caps it seems that we don't really know year to year who will be in the Super Bowl. Of course, this was not always the case. In fact, it used to be you knew it was going to be either the 49ers or the Cowboys etc, who would be in the Super Bowl, even before the year began. Of course, you still have issues with parity even though they now have the salary cap such as the abysmal ownership with such teams as the Bengals/Browns/Lions, that still don't perform even though the playing field has been leveled. I don't think anything can really be done to remedy this, so I point to the NFL as the most ideal sport in terms of parity.

Of course, many have heard me complain about MLB. Here we have the combination of badly run organizations as well as inequity in terms of payroll. As a result, we have many more teams, other than two or three in the NFL, that NEVER see the light of day and NEVER will. For me, the sport is basically broken and is the broken model for organized sports.

As for college football, I am in favor of reorganizing the leagues. For example, instead of my beloved Buckeyes, or other Big Ten teams, playing in the Rose Bowl and getting blown away by USC, for the last 29 years, make a change. Try having the Rose Bowl be between the SEC and PAC 10 and leave the Big Ten out of the picture. Of course, it would be kind of sad to see the Big Ten left out of the Rose bowl on one level, but on the other hand it would be good to finally see some parity in major bowl games. I would also rework the Big Ten. Leave out teams like Indiana and Northwestern etc. How many times must we watch OSU blow away Indiana by 30 points or more?

Anyone agree?

I would like nothing more than to see the relegation system employeed in European sports brought to North American sports. If a team is unwilling/unable to perform at the highest level, then they shouldn't be there.

Originally posted by Fleabitten
I would like nothing more than to see the relegation system employeed in European sports brought to North American sports. If a team is unwilling/unable to perform at the highest level, then they shouldn't be there.

well i'm not sure what the quality of teams are like below the nfl, nhl and nba but it seems like the triple a teams in baseball would get blown away by the others... america is such a big country as well if they did have lower league that had a chance of promotion into the top tier it would cost that team million in travels expenses etc. not to mention the better caliber of player they would have to sign to compete (higher wages) i just don't think it would work like it does in european soccer.

they could possibly learn a little from the scottish third division, if a team finishes bottom of the league for 3 years in a row the other teams in the league vote to see if they want to keep them in the league or not, i'm not sure if there many organisation on the doorstep wanting to replace anyone but it's something to think about.

Originally posted by trev33
well i'm not sure what the quality of teams are like below the nfl, nhl and nba but it seems like the triple a teams in baseball would get blown away by the others... america is such a big country as well if they did have lower league that had a chance of promotion into the top tier it would cost that team million in travels expenses etc. not to mention the b ...[text shortened]... gn to compete (higher wages) i just don't think it would work like it does in european soccer.

I agree that it would never work they way it does in European football, because of the hurdles you've mentioned.

Unfortunately, there are some owners in N.A. sports that could care less if their team wins a championship and I can't really think of another way to incentivize those owners to field a worthwhile product other than the threat of losing the massive revenue streams that participating in the big leagues produces.

Apologies if this is off track from whodey's intention for the thread.

I find it interesting how this contrasts with your political views.

Originally posted by whodey
Just out of curiousity, who here wishes sports in general had more parity? Of course, the issues may include managment, small market vs big market teams etc, but we all can point to a sport and know that a few teams will have no chance and those that always do and always will.

Having said that, I think that a few sports do a pretty good job in term of p ...[text shortened]... c. How many times must we watch OSU blow away Indiana by 30 points or more?

Anyone agree?

I think parity is the worst thing that can happen in sports. To say the NBA would be better without the Celtics or MLB would be better without the Yankees is crazy. Whether you root for or against those teams, every time they come to town or on TV it is an event. Why would you rather have everyone at .500? There is no focus and no "big wins"
To me overexpansion is the problem. Perhaps there are certain towns that cannot/ will not support their franchise. In MLB right now Pittsburgh and Kansas City might fit in that category. The sport should not cater to its worst franchises it should eliminate them. I am sure that most sports would be even better if they simply eliminated their worst teams and spread the talent.
The Rose Bowl should be for its original intenet. To have a game with the best Big 10 team vs. the best Pac 10 team. If you want more competitive balance in that game don't always give the Pac 10 home field advantage. If the game was played outdoors in the Midwest, the Pac 10 would not win as often.
It is just a myth that you don't know why will win in the NFL. The Lions suck every year and the Colts, Patriots and Steelers are great.

in the past 10 years there's been 7 different superbowl winners.

8 different world series champions.

8 stanley cup winners

and 3 nba chumpions

and you wonder why the nba is considered the most boring of north american sports.

look at the european soccer leagues in the past 10 years, you'll find it difficult finding a league with more than 4 different winners in the past 10 years.

that's what i love about n. american sports (-crappy basketball) the yankees and all their money hasn't won a ws title in 10 years. no other sport has that, and look at the mets and their wage bill.. 24 years is a long time. the little teams always has a chance.

Originally posted by trev33
in the past 10 years there's been 7 different superbowl winners.

8 different world series champions.

8 stanley cup winners

and 3 nba chumpions

and you wonder why the nba is considered the most boring of north american sports.

look at the european soccer leagues in the past 10 years, you'll find it difficult finding a league with more than 4 d ...[text shortened]... he mets and their wage bill.. 24 years is a long time. the little teams always has a chance.

Don't forget Sox going 87 years without a win, and CUBS are up to 100 years now or something?

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Don't forget Sox going 87 years without a win, and CUBS are up to 100 years now or something?

yeah but jinxes don't count 😉

Originally posted by trev33


and 3 nba chumpions

and you wonder why the nba is considered the most boring of north american sports.

look at the european soccer leagues in the past 10 years, you'll find it difficult finding a league with more than 4 d he mets and their wage bill.. 24 years is a long time. the little teams always has a chance.

the irony is that the NBA has the strictest salary cap system - and it seems like all the salary rules make it almost impossible for one of the bad or mediocre teams to become good enough to contend for a title. As it stands now, the rebuilding strategy has become "clear up enough cap space and successfully sign King James in 2010 or else go bust". When James decides to remain with Cleveland there will be a lot of unhappy campers, especially in the New York area.

my proposal for college football.

the leagues have become WAY too big. I would create a new set of sixteen leagues where no league had more than seven teams. In order to determine what teams went to the BCS bowls, I would take all the league winners and seed them from 1-16 based on their BCS rankings. (#1 would play #16, #2 would play #15, etc etc). The eight winners would then get automatic slots in the BCS bowls. The other two spots would be at large bids.

I would try to retain as many traditional rivalries as possible when creating the leagues, and there would be periodic adjustments to ensure that each league was relatively similar in strength.

Another idea - I would require all teams to keep at least two dates open in the second half of the season. Sometime at the end of October, the NCAA would assess how all the teams are doing and would pair evenly matched teams (based on the BCS formula) to play in each of the open dates. This would eliminate a lot of the annoying mismatches, and would guarantee a lot of really good games in November without having to have a playoff system. And teams in the running for a national title (including the likes of Boise St) would know they'd have a couple of really tough games. It would also guarantee that the really bad teams would have a couple of winnable games.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
my proposal for college football.

the leagues have become WAY too big. I would create a new set of sixteen leagues where no league had more than seven teams. In order to determine what teams went to the BCS bowls, I would take all the league winners and seed them from 1-16 based on their BCS rankings. (#1 would play #16, #2 would play #15, etc etc). Th games. It would also guarantee that the really bad teams would have a couple of winnable games.

Your system has a few flaws that I see right off. Your 16 "leagues" are going to produce 1 team into your BCS scenario. That means they will play a total of 6 conference games each year. The non conference games will mean nothing, under your scenario, since they do not impact the "league" standings. (FYI, if they did impact the standings, all of the schools would rush to play games against the sisters of the poor, the legless academy, and the blind coalition each year so they could pad their win column).

The second problem is your BCS tier of 16 games. It would add 4 games to the schedule of the top two teams. Since they try to limit the games to roughly 12 at max, you would only allow 1 non conference game for any team. This means the season would be shortened to 8 games maximum for the non BCS qualifying teams.

The third problem is when you limit the highest revenue generating sport for the athletic programs (in most cases), you erode the capacity of many schools to finance their programs.

The fourth flaw is there are more than 112 teams playing NCAA football. How do you propose to eliminate the teams who you believe rank 113 and below? If you say multiple tiers, then you open multiple cans of worms by determining who qualifies for which league.

The fifth flaw is how you want to pair the "leagues" together. If financial costing is the primary impetus, you will have to waive rivalries. Geographic regions is the only real sensible way to set it up, but it would be met with a ton of criticism.


Next....who is going to be set up to run all of these leagues, and who will pay for their administration?

I can go on, but i think you catch my drift. This is not well conceived, although it may be well intentioned. Sorry.

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Your system has a few flaws that I see right off. Your 16 "leagues" are going to produce 1 team into your BCS scenario. That means they will play a total of 6 conference games each year. The non conference games will mean nothing, under your scenario, since they do not impact the "league" standings. (FYI, if they did impact the standings, all of the sch ou catch my drift. This is not well conceived, although it may be well intentioned. Sorry.

This was not intended to be a final proposal of any sort - and I'm sure that there are many flaws that you have not yet spotted. Just wanted to put some ideas out there, and I'm certain the NCAA would be interested in none of it.

However:

my 16 team setup is not a full playoff - just a "first round" that would reduce the field from 16 teams to 8 - so it would only add one game.

the non-conference games are already meaningless under the current system. The result is the huge collection of mismatches we currently are stuck with. My second "open dates" proposal is an effort to address that issue. You could add it to the first proposal.

I am in no way limiting the ability of any school's football program from producing big revenues. Eliminating the mismatches could produce more fan interest for many programs and thus more revenues.

I'm open to the idea that some leagues have 8 teams, or perhaps we could have 18 leagues (9 BCS spots and 1 at-large bid) -- whatever we need to do to get every team in there. We just don't need these ultra-big leagues with like 12 teams in them.

I am fully aware that creating the actual leagues would create a ton of criticism. Maybe the whole thing would create so much criticism that everyone would just agree to have that "awful" playoff system that the NCAA doesn't want. 😀

Originally posted by trev33
look at the european soccer leagues in the past 10 years, you'll find it difficult finding a league with more than 4 different winners in the past 10 years. [/b]

Italy, Germany, Russia and Malta without spending to much time looking.

Sadly at the top level it is all too predictable at the moment, but at least I know my side (at the eighth level of English football) can rise to the top and not be stopped purely because they aren't from a big market. Unlike the peanut huggers we share with.

Originally posted by Peakite
Italy, Germany, Russia and Malta without spending to much time looking.

Sadly at the top level it is all too predictable at the moment, but at least I know my side (at the eighth level of English football) can rise to the top and not be stopped purely because they aren't from a big market. Unlike the peanut huggers we share with.

i didn't check russia or (who cares) malta. italy and germany both with 5 but wait 2 years and it will be 3 in italy and 4 in germany.

my point stands in comparison to n. america.