Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbycockstrong
But I mean thats not what "balance" is. It is, or can be, "competitive", but its not "balance" as people would fundamentally understand the term. Competitive balance doesnt mean .500 across the board. Balance isnt about winning or losing. Balance is about a fair competitive playing field.
Ive reiterated the point multiple times, but I think its comes down to simply people achieving an immediate competitive advantage that is not readily available to all competitors. If X has a competitive advantage over Y, then its not balanced. Y can still beat X, or be on par with X, but that doesnt mean its balanced. They made the gap up some other way.
I can give you a few goofy examples if you want.
To use MLB, lets just pretend that 1, or a handful of the 30 teams, was given unlimited roster size, no luxury tax penalties, and their players were not subject to PED violations. Would you say that those teams had a competitive advantage? Would you say the other teams were competing in a balanced competition? Some might still be competitive, but it would be balanced.
Here is another goofy one. Lets say you coach a little league team. 12 years old is the max age. If one team got to use all 18 year olds, would that be balanced? Sure the other 12 year old teams could still compete. It would be tougher, they would have to adapt for sure. They might even win, who knows. But its not "balanced" in the fundamental sense of the word.
You are confusing competition with competitive balance. They are not the same thing.
|
That's the thing though. Nobody has given only one team unlimited roster size. If they choose not to use it, that is entirely upon them.
So in this particular example, the analogy isn't valid because there are no rules in place enforcing any type of competitive advantage.