Which system is better: NFL or Baseball

[zeke12]

Of course money can cover up mistakes.

But you don't have to be the Yankees to build a contender.

And having the Yankees in the league is good for the league. It pushes the other owners to make their teams better.

To buy into some people on this thread's logic, I'd have to believe that the Glass's of the world were actually losing money.

They're not. They're making money. They just won't put money at risk. Which means they need to get the fork out of the way, and let an owner with some stones take over. And those teams will improve.

And someone has to finish last. Why shouldn't it be the teams with owners who spend the least money?

Or should everyone take turns making the playoffs?

 

[BTExpress]

You are running a 100-yard dash against George Steinbrenner

Mr. Steinbrenner has been given a 50-yard head start.

Now, it's possible Mr. Steinbrenner could "do something stupid" with his lead (like that snowboarding chick did at the Olympics), and he is not 100 percent guaranteed to beat you in this race.

But can anyone honestly say that he doesn't have a "distinct advantage"?

If you raced, and lost, would you say, "Well, if I had just trained harder and smarter and had a better coach . . . I could have won!" ? ? ?

Chances are, you'd be saying, "This forking competition was a farce."

 

[Almost_Famous]

Zeke - just admit it's not a level playing field and get it over with. the numbers don't lie.
Great post, BTExpress.

NFL 2005 playoff teams, followed by payroll rank (32 teams)
Wash 30
TB 26
JVille 12
New England 7
Carolina 8
NYG 14
Pitt 6
Cincy 25
Seattle 1
Denv 5
Indy 23
Chicago 22

2004 NFL playoffs
Stl 25
Seatle 5
NYJ 7
SD 26
Denver 28
Indy 9
Minny 8
GB 18
Pitt 22
Atl 15
Philly 2
New England 24

*Love how NE goes from 24th in spending to 7. There are other examples ... Pittsburgh goes from 22 to 6th and wins Super Bowl ... Indy goes from 9th to 23rd ... Denver goes from 28th to 5th ...

2 yr consensus
24 playoff teams

playoff teams with total payroll 1-10: 9
playoff teams with total payroll 11-21: 5
playoff teams with total payroll 22-32: 10

 

[zeke12]

A_F --
You forking dunce. you're wading into the thread twenty pages in trying to prove something that's already been stipulated.

Baseball doesn't have a salary cap. Football does. Roger. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Kid Presentable]

Hahahahaha.

The Redskins have the 30th payroll in the league? Right ...........

P.S. The salary cap sure doesn't prevent the Skins from going out and signing whoever the heck they want.

 

[Kid Presentable]

Ok, finally, some actual #'s. small sample size - someone else can do 2000, 01, 02
http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2003

2005 MLB playoff teams (followed by payroll rank)
NYY 1
Boston 2
Anaheim 17
CW 20 and world champions
Atl 8
Stl 10
Houston 11
SD 13

2004 MLB playoff teams
NYY 1
Boston 2
Anaheim 3
Minn 19
LA 6
Atl 8
Stl 9
Houston 12

2003 MLB playoff teams
NYY 1
Boston 6
Minn 18
Oak 23
Atl 3
SF 9
Cubs 11
Fla 25 and world champions

3 yr consensus
24 playoff teams
playoff teams with total payroll 1-10: 14
Playoff teams with total payroll 11-20: 8
playoff teams with total payroll 21-30: 2 (both were in 2003)

Spending more = much, much greater chance at the playoffs. This much is clear. Still surprised this many people needed to see the #'s to understand the logic.

 

[urgrad04]

The NFL does a better job of ensuring competitive balance because of a hard cap but it doesn't mean the quality of play in the league is better than MLB. Think of the NFL teams pre salary cap in the late 80s and early 90s. Those 49ers and Cowboys squads would have destroyed last year's Steelers SB team, who as late as December looked like they weren't making the playoffs. The NFL's main goal is to have little difference between the top of the league and the bottom giving every fan the hope their team can make the playoffs at the beginning of each season. The league loves to see eight games on a Sunday afternoon go down the wire because everything that's done now centers around tv ratings. That's why the league made a killing on the recent network package which is all they seem to care about. Baseball with its regional deals for every team could care less about ratings. Revenue sharing is pointless when teams such as Kansas City and Pittsburgh don't spend the money they get from it on players anyway. But the quality of play might be better. The recent World Series teams are just as good as the teams 10 to 15 years ago, while the same can't be said for the NFL. Small market teams -- the Marlins, A's and Twins -- have proved they can compete. What's the difference between the A's being forced to disband because they can't afford Mulder and Hudson with the 2001 Ravens being forced to gut their team because of the salary cap? If you're looking for the best combination of quality of play and competitive balance in a league though it's the NBA.

 

[Almost_Famous]

A_F --
You forking dunce. you're wading into the thread twenty pages in trying to prove something that's already been stipulated.
Baseball doesn't have a salary cap. Football does. Roger. Thanks for stopping by.

Zeke - these are not figures I am reporting. They are straight out of the USA Today database. Go and see for yourself. In the event you have been asleep the last few years, Snyder has altered has spending habits just a bit. I understand that you are speaking from the heart, because you love baseball. But please.

Based on the initial question, my answer to the 'better system' is the one that ensures the most level playing field, and the one where the competitive balance is as equal as possible. Without question, the answer is the NFL. As I proved with those numbers, the financial chasm is so wide among MLB teams, that those in the the bottom 3rd RARELY make the playoffs. The numbers back that up.

That is not the case in the NFL. The numbers also back that up.

 

[steveu]

Paul Tagliabue's model of the NFL is one where he'd love to see all 32 teams go 8-8 and prove parity is alive and well. Unfortunately, that model has resulted in a lot of lackluster games or games that don't have a big interest among fans (something MLB also has during the regular season).

 

[zeke12]

Baseball's "spending chasm" is, I guess, far from utopian.

It is, however, vastly preferable to the NFL's forced mediocrity.

 

[BYH]

A_F --
You forking dunce. you're wading into the thread twenty pages in trying to prove something that's already been stipulated.
Baseball doesn't have a salary cap. Football does. Roger. Thanks for stopping by.

Zeke - these are not figures I am reporting. They are straight out of the USA Today database. Go and see for yourself. In the event you have been asleep the last few years, Snyder has altered has spending habits just a bit. I understand that you are speaking from the heart, because you love baseball. But please.

Based on the initial question, my answer to the 'better system' is the one that ensures the most level playing field, and the one where the competitive balance is as equal as possible. Without question, the answer is the NFL. As I proved with those numbers, the financial chasm is so wide among MLB teams, that those in the the bottom 3rd RARELY make the playoffs. The numbers back that up.

That is not the case in the NFL. The numbers also back that up.

And according to the numbers here, MLB's financial structure is better than that of the NFL's.

Sorry. You lose. Probably doesn't help your cause that Pube is the NFL's spokesman on this issue.

 

[Almost_Famous]

A_F --
You forking dunce. you're wading into the thread twenty pages in trying to prove something that's already been stipulated.
Baseball doesn't have a salary cap. Football does. Roger. Thanks for stopping by.

Zeke - these are not figures I am reporting. They are straight out of the USA Today database. Go and see for yourself. In the event you have been asleep the last few years, Snyder has altered has spending habits just a bit. I understand that you are speaking from the heart, because you love baseball. But please.
Based on the initial question, my answer to the 'better system' is the one that ensures the most level playing field, and the one where the competitive balance is as equal as possible. Without question, the answer is the NFL. As I proved with those numbers, the financial chasm is so wide among MLB teams, that those in the the bottom 3rd RARELY make the playoffs. The numbers back that up.
That is not the case in the NFL. The numbers also back that up.

And according to the numbers here, MLB's financial structure is better than that of the NFL's.
Sorry. You lose. Probably doesn't help your cause that Pube is the NFL's spokesman on this issue.

What are these numbers? Because the ones i provided clearly show that the wide disparity in MLB spending tilts the advantage toward the heavy spenders. It's not even an argument.
The MLB financial structure is best described as a joke.
I'm not saying thte NFL's is idea, but it makes far more sense than MLB.

Any further questions tonight, and i'll refer you to the BTexpress post at the top of this page (or maybe on page 21). It's the one about a race, and the Yankees having a massive headstart. It's great stuff.