Which system is better: NFL or Baseball

Bingo.

Although, everyone does hate Pube that much.

Also, you have to ask if absolute parity is what sports fans want.

Without the Yankees, who would we hate? Who would we feel good about beating?

That's the question the NFL has to ask itself. Baseball's doing fine. Really, it is.

 

DP--
Speaking of, are they going to do anything today? I haven't heard anything about them doing shit, which leads me to believe they're OK going into next year with Wood/Prior questions and the same lineup?

Or are they waiting to make a big FA splash?

 

What on earth are you saying "bingo" to?

 

I would just like to point out three things here.

1. Pube now has 13 of the last 16 posts on this thread. That's a bit much.

2. Arguing that the A's were really better off without that long list of talent they've lost is dishonest, and I suspect BYH knows that. Certainly, BYH knows far more about the game than I, but I've got to imagine that holding onto those established, everyday players would've been much more beneficial for the A's than watching them leave and then trying to replace them with rookies.

3. Small market teams can compete in baseball. But they can't compete on the same level and on a consistent basis for the same time span as the big market clubs. Sure, the A's have done better than most and have proven that a smaller budget team can have success. But at the same time, they're scrapping and clawing and studying and scheming every damn day all year long to remain a step behind the NYY and BoSox. In the NFL, every team is like the A's. Every team, no matter the market, has to have smart management. It doesn't matter if you're in NY and pulling in more cash. The field is level. You've got just as much to work with as the guy in Green Bay. Whichever one of you makes the best personnel decisions is going to win. With free agency, professional sports will likely never again see a real dynasty. Maybe in the NBA since there are so few players on a roster. But the days of holding together a dominating team for six or seven years are over. With that being the case, the only fair way I see of doing things, since to be a successful league all your teams need to at least have a shot at it, is to level the playing field. The NFL's system does a better job of that -- from top to bottom throughout the league -- than MLB's.

 

Try the post directly above mine, genius.

 

So stipulated. Even in the most uneven of a given daily matchup, the betting spread on a game is 1 1/2 runs.

Way too much luck in play in the game itself to assure the best team has won the division after 16 games.

 

He just likes hearing himself talk, which is fine since no one else does.

 

I wouldn't have to explain as much if there were more posts like this on the thread from respected posters to begin with.

But you are right ... every word.

 

Again, it comes down to management. Baseball has ALWAYS, ALWAYS had a two-tiered system between the haves and have-nots, stretching back to the Dead Ball Era.

Good management can deal with it and compete on a regular basis, whether they're in Atlanta or Oakland.
Bad management blows it. If you want to cry about the Royals, then let's cry about the Dodgers too.

 

And say what you will about a salary cap, but a salary floor would destroy MLB.

Example: The Marlins' payroll is about $14 million this year, but they have a great team of rookies and prospects that should develop into a contending team within a year or two. But with a $30 million payroll minimum, Marlins' management is forced to sign the Joe Randa's and Jeromy Burnitz's and Tony Graffanino's just to get its payroll in accordance. Then instead of developing Josh Willingham and Dan Uggla, they have to waste at-bats on Burnitz and Graffanino.

Not to mention, each team pockets $50 million before the season begins from the Central Fund, MLB Advanced Media, etc. It's not the system's fault that David Glass pockets most of that money.

 

Another couple of things:

1. When did I become a "respected" poster?

2. We can't allow this argument to stretch on for however many pages and then start pointing out the obvious flaws, like baseball teams play far more games, there is no farm system for the NFL, etc., to make points for or against whichever system you're advocating. I believe that MLB would be improved if it adopted a salary cap. I think that the revenue sharing has proven that -- that some of these small market clubs, even with just a slightly more leveled playing field, can make baseball much more competitive all the way up and down. If some of the top clubs couldn't hide their mismanagement by simply throwing out more money, I think there would be a real change at the top of the standings each year.

 

The Ravens, I guess.

Problem is, it's hard to really define a "great" team in the NFL or keep one great. In addition to the cap, the NFL forces winning teams to draft low and play harder schedules. Plus, the amazing amount of injuries can turn a "great" team into a mediocre one even before all those other factors come in to play.

If a 4-12 NFL team suddenly rises up to make the playoffs, is it because they played a fifth-place schedule . . . or remained injury free . . . or were able to draft a franchise QB with the No. 2 pick  . . . or won some obscure tiebreaker with three other 9-7 teams . . . or because the teams above them all had to cut some good players because of salary-cap woes? All of the above? Some of the above?

The NFL just has too many variables to analyze compared to baseball.