Originally posted by sh76 I never argued in favor of a salary cap. A salary cap cannot work without significant revenue sharing. A severe luxury tax without a salary cap will makes things competitive.
All I know is that the NFL introduced a salary cap and it seems that the parity has increased. It used to be that you pretty much knew who was going to win a Super Bowl before the year started, but not so much now.
Originally posted by no1marauder The Reds have been in first most of this year, but their attendance is only 14th out of 16 in the NL. It's hard to see how they can be long term competitive if their fans won't support a winning team.
And its hard to gain fan interest when your team has been horrible for about a decade and a half. You can't field a horrible team for that long and just expect fans to come out of the wood work when you have a good year. After all, baseball is passed down from generation to generation. So what has happened in Cincinnati? You basically lost a generation.
Originally posted by whodey And its hard to gain fan interest when your team has been horrible for about a decade and a half. You can't field a horrible team for that long and just expect fans to come out of the wood work when you have a good year. After all, baseball is passed down from generation to generation. So what has happened in Cincinnati? You basically lost a generation.
That's a lame excuse. Other teams have had rapid turnarounds in attendance once they became contenders (and the Reds were only a little below .500 last year - hardly "horrible"😉. IF Cincinnati really won't support the team, maybe it should move.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's a lame excuse. Other teams have had rapid turnarounds in attendance once they became contenders (and the Reds were only a little below .500 last year - hardly "horrible"😉. IF Cincinnati really won't support the team, maybe it should move.
I would agree if the team continues to win and fan support does not increase, but to expect support to turn on the head of a dime after almost 2 decades of subpar baseball is simply ridiculous.
Originally posted by whodey I would agree if the team continues to win and fan support does not increase, but to expect support to turn on the head of a dime after almost 2 decades of subpar baseball is simply ridiculous.
Well we just had three SROs this weekend against Atlanta so maybe the worm has turned. Great games, too.
Originally posted by whodey All I know is that the NFL introduced a salary cap and it seems that the parity has increased. It used to be that you pretty much knew who was going to win a Super Bowl before the year started, but not so much now.
News flash the Colts and Patriots have been excellent since their quarterbacks arrived and the Lions stinks every year. There are more different teams winning world series and playing in the world series than winning and playing in super bowls or winning and playing for NBA championships but I don't let the facts ruin your rant against money ruining baseball
Originally posted by whodey And its hard to gain fan interest when your team has been horrible for about a decade and a half. You can't field a horrible team for that long and just expect fans to come out of the wood work when you have a good year. After all, baseball is passed down from generation to generation. So what has happened in Cincinnati? You basically lost a generation.
suppose we waved a wand and absolute parity was to prevail in MLB forever more.
being that there are 30 teams in MLB, the average team would win a world series only about 3 times per century -- and random distribution would mean that some teams would be like the Cubs and go more than a century between championships.
as such -- with the Reds having had 3 championships within that past 40 years, they're considerably ahead of the curve.
Originally posted by Melanerpes suppose we waved a wand and absolute parity was to prevail in MLB forever more.
being that there are 30 teams in MLB, the average team would win a world series only about 3 times per century -- and random distribution would mean that some teams would be like the Cubs and go more than a century between championships.
as such -- with the Reds having had 3 championships within that past 40 years, they're considerably ahead of the curve.
I personally feel that the magic parity wand would make MLB (or any other sport) amazingly boring. There would be no Cinderella, no historic wins, no little guy/ big guy stories. It would be just be like rooting for your team to win the lottery.
I wonder if others agree or if people feel that magic wand would be the ultimate in competition.
Originally posted by whodey All I know is that the NFL introduced a salary cap and it seems that the parity has increased. It used to be that you pretty much knew who was going to win a Super Bowl before the year started, but not so much now.
First of all, the NFL has significant revenue sharing, making a salary cap feasible.
Second, the big runs by the Cowboys and Patriots happened after the salary cap was in place. In the 80s, there was at least as much parity.
Originally posted by Melanerpes There's also going to be a certain amount of parity just because the NFL has only 16-game seasons.
What if the other sports only played 16 games? -- pretty much anyone could and would win. Long seasons tend to separate the true contenders.
Or do long seasons separate our perceptions.
In MLB almost all teams will win between 40% and 60% of their games. Yet some are convinced the Yankees are unfairly good and the Pirates are hopelessly bad. The Lions can lose every single game (and stink every year for years) and the Patriots or the Colts can shoot for a perfect season (and regularly win their division) and no one complains about competitive balance.
Originally posted by quackquack Or do long seasons separate our perceptions.
In MLB almost all teams will win between 40% and 60% of their games. Yet some are convinced the Yankees are unfairly good and the Pirates are hopelessly bad. The Lions can lose every single game (and stink every year for years) and the Patriots or the Colts can shoot for a perfect season (and regularly win their division) and no one complains about competitive balance.
in the NFL, a truly average team can get a few favorable bounces (and an easy schedule) and finish 12-4 with one of the top 2 seeds. And a truly good team is only a few bad breaks away from going 9-7 and missing the playoffs.
in baseball, if a truly average team gets lucky, they may go 89-73 and still have a hard time making the playoffs.
Originally posted by Melanerpes in the NFL, a truly average team can get a few favorable bounces (and an easy schedule) and finish 12-4 with one of the top 2 seeds. And a truly good team is only a few bad breaks away from going 9-7 and missing the playoffs.
in baseball, if a truly average team gets lucky, they may go 89-73 and still have a hard time making the playoffs.
If all teams had a 50% likelihood of winning in a 16 team game schedule. The probability of winning 4 of fewer games would be 3.8%. Anyone who watches the NFL in the last decade could clearly see that teams like the Lions and the Raiders aren't just average teams getting bad bounces and the Colts and Patriots aren't average teams getting the breaks. The NFL has just pounded into peoples heads the "every given Sunday theory" even if competitive balance is non-existent. In baseball there simply is less distance between teams, more different teams in the playoffs and more different teams winning championships.
Originally posted by quackquack If all teams had a 50% likelihood of winning in a 16 team game schedule. The probability of winning 4 of fewer games would be 3.8%. Anyone who watches the NFL in the last decade could clearly see that teams like the Lions and the Raiders aren't just average teams getting bad bounces and the Colts and Patriots aren't average teams getting the breaks. teams, more different teams in the playoffs and more different teams winning championships.
If the probability of a given truly average team winning at least 12 games is 4% -- if about 20 of the league's 32 teams are "truly average", then you'd expect about one of those teams each year to win 12 games on the basis of luck alone (not to mention the significantly higher likelihood that an average team will go at least 11-5)
This doesn't mean that it's all just lucky bounces. Clearly, teams like the Patriots and the Colts are among the very best -- but there's always a team or two in the mix that makes the playoffs mostly on the basis of luck -- and when you have a single elimination playoff format, well...you're one half away from the Jets and their rookie interception-prone QB from making it to the Superbowl.
01 Aug '10 03:35
Steinbrenner Dead
Back to Top