1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which system is better: NFL or Baseball

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Columbo, Jul 30, 2006.

?

Which sport's financial setup protects its fans and competitive balance better, NFL or MLB?

  1. NFL

    34 vote(s)
    54.8%
  2. MLB

    28 vote(s)
    45.2%
  1. viamsp

    viamsp Member

    To respond to the line-by-line breakdown of my post:

    My point was the random chance of season results. The NFL has a financial structure that promotes parity, and a 16 game schedule. It's ridiculous to suggest that random chance doesn't come into play. Baseball plays 162 games -- the good teams invariably finish at the tops of the standings.

    Sure, finances do come into play. But it's not nearly the direct correlation that a lot of people posit it is.

    Seems to me like you're arguing against certain facts (the Twins, A's remaining competitive, Marlins winning two World Series, the Indians' successes) by just saying that things could have been better. Maybe not though. To paraphrase you on an earlier thread: Would you rather have the A's rotation as currently constitued (injuries aside -- although, spending a paucity of dollars still has given them the depth to be a first place team) or one where you have Mulder and Hudson in it? The Marlins now or the Marlins with Pavano and Penny?

    And teams without the benefit of huge financial backing can get past free agency mistakes if they have a solid base of talent. The Twins signed Rondell White and Tony Batista in the offseason. Other organizational smarts have overcome those (granted, White is starting to swing the bat a little bit).

    You just hear this dogma that's been out there since the 90s: "Small market teams can't compete in baseball's current financial structure," and believe it, going against the face of facts.
     
  2. Johnny Drama

    Johnny Drama Member

    um... that would be, like, what, 10 points in football?

    run in baseball does not equal a point in football
     
  3. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    A run would be between 3 and 4 points in football.

    Not 10. Nice.
     
  4. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    The Yankees winning 26 world titles solely because they happen to be located in one place as opposed to another and can inundate people in spending.. that galls me.

    Really, in the context of a league of 30 teams, it's like they are on steroids.
     
  5. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Since you mischaracterized my positions in a couple spots here, I would rather you respond to quoted material of mine.
     
  6. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    When you agreed with Pube. Otherwise he'd call you a degenerate moron.

    10 would be a fair comparison. You score a touchdown, it's pretty much 7 points (yes, you could miss the extra point, but 99.98% of the time, it's 7 points). A field goal would be like the half run.
     
  7. RAMBO

    RAMBO Member

    You also got take his age into consideration
     
  8. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    So is this just about the Yankees? Because the Yankees have almost three times as many titles as any other team, and this is stretching back to 1923. In addition to having the advantage of playing in the largest market, the Yankees have also been consistently well-run, consistently well-stocked with good development from within, and consistently well-coached over most of the last century.

    That's good management. Yes, they can get away with mistakes. But they're also, historically, a pretty fairly fucking fine organization which generally gets the most out of itself (until the Boss decides to meddle, as he is wont to do.)

    When the highest kid in the class gets a 100, it throws the entire Bell curve out of whack. Doesn't mean the Bell curve is wrong. It means one overachieving team skews the context.

    Not all of that has to do with money.
     
  9. viamsp

    viamsp Member

    I really didn't feel like quoting the two ultra-long posts. And in retrospect, I suppose my post was more general arguments than direct response. The one direct refute I made was in reference to the chance argument.
     
  10. Oz

    Oz Well-Known Member

    Of course, the 1970s Steelers didn't have to worry about free agency. That's why the 1979 Steelers were -- and will always be -- the only team to win a Super Bowl with players that knew no other franchise but the Steelers.

    And people can say what they want about the Yankees' payroll these days, but I must say this -- it must be nice to have an owner that actually cares about wins and losses.
     
  11. HoopsMcCann

    HoopsMcCann Active Member

    as a fellow royals fan, all i can say is hell yes

    i blame david glass not 'the system'
     
  12. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    I used that example just to point out how talented that playoffs-bereft organization was in baseball.

    I could have mentioned the 2000s Patriots instead.. Should have.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page