Which system is better: NFL or Baseball

I'm still tryin to figure out which side of the debate Pube is on ....

Anyone help a brother out?

 

Are you Walker?

Or Texas Ranger?

 

1. He knew that even 35,000 a game at a stadium he owned wouldn't cut it.... and he was incensed at Steinbrenner.

2. Grossly overpaid players? Alex Fernandez blew out his arm against the Braves.... who else could you be talking about?

3. Without a stadium in place, I don't think Loria could sell the Marlins today for very much of anything. I would say that you are right about that... though I would like to see the past few sales... I can't even remember what they are.

 

Will everyone just stop responding to Pube so this unholy thread can die the gruesome death it so richly deserves?

 

In other words:

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The vote was about 50-50; that the NFL didn't run away and hide has to be credited to the reasons Ralph Waldo eloquently stated.

 

You and your buddies embarrassed yourself on this thread with not a single point, yet a load of name-calling.

Look in the mirror.

 

This isn't high comedy ... it's draining.

The podunk press, circ 2,000, doesn't compare itself to the NY Times.
A 150 lb weight lifter isn't in the same class of lifting as the 300 lb guy.

When you can spend $150 or $200 million on payroll, and your opponent is spending $30 million, there is a distinct unlevel playing field.

Occasionally, you will find small-market teams slip through the cracks and win a title or reach the postseason ... i would guess mostly as wild cards. Yes, a great baseball mind (Beane, Billy) can make a difference, and consistently evaluate talent enough to keep a small market club competitive. And yes, plenty of teams are in 'contention' for a postseason berth for the bulk of the season. These are exceptions to the rule.

But if you cannot see that there is a distinct advantage by spending $100 million more than your competition, I cannot help you.

 

The fact that majority of the debate on this thread is the attack/defense of baseball's system is somewhat telling.

Plus too, the fact that a World Series featuring Chicago and Houston, the third and fifth or sixth (I believe) largest markets in the country struggled with television ratings is revealing.

A Superbowl featuring Green Bay or New Orleans would still outdraw a seven-game World Series between the Yankees and Red Sox (if that was possible) combined.

 

To me, it's not even about ratings.

It's the simple fact that when one team spends $100 million more than the other team, you're talking about a distinct advantage. Nobody can argue that.

 

no. What you can argue is which system produes a more compelling product.

The answer is baseball.

 

a) That's a different thread
b) That's highly debateable (as evidenced by this thread, ratings, attendance, general interest, etc)

And if you want to go that route, a 16-game season, where each game actually means something, is far more compelling to me than a 162-game (or even 82-game) season that drags on forever. But hey, that's just me.