Communism failing?

Skipaway · 03-22-2005, 04:36 AM

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=2018691

McNair is right that it would be wrong to take away incentive for clubs to increase their revenues.

canadiancreed · 03-22-2005, 11:38 AM

though this was old news. The communism failing apart that is

eriqjaffe · 03-22-2005, 12:01 PM

the fall of baseball communism? I remember it like it was yesterday...

"John Henry, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!"

treedom · 03-22-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

though this was old news. The communism failing apart that is

Well, it's really hard to say that something fell apart when it was never actually implemented anywhere in the world.

canadiancreed · 03-22-2005, 12:10 PM

though that happened in 1975

canadiancreed · 03-22-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treedom

Well, it's really hard to say that something fell apart when it was never actually implemented anywhere in the world.

hmm....true. The USSR and China never did hit on Mrax's idealogy 100%.

sixto · 03-22-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=2018691

McNair is right that it would be wrong to take away incentive for clubs to increase their revenues.

Wrong - but not out of the question. Remember we are in an era where two leagues (WNBA and MLS) own all the teams and MLB owns one team (and gave that team's broadcast revenue away to another team).

The NFL is a TV league. And think about what parity does, too, if ultimately it strengthens teams' home records at the expense of their road records. I have absolutely no stats on this, but an NFL team that goes 5-11 with 5 home wins won .625 of its home games - a nice percentage for the tailgaters.

It would be wrong to take away the incentive for clubs to increase their revenues, but not if there is a limited pool of revenue and one owner is taking it from another owner.

If I were in charge of the NFL the first thing I'd do is start an NFL Cup type of scenario - where head-to-head divisional records determine the 8-team NFL Cup that is held after the Super Bowl, like the World Cup.

It would make divisional games absolute bitter slugfests and could provide a revenue boost via TV while incenting teams to make the cup.

Skipaway · 03-22-2005, 08:09 PM

So socialism or communism? I think that's the argument among owners.

I don't think any of the owners are really for a free market, but rich teams are definitely against communism. I am using the description purely for the argument among owners, which is about revenue distribution, not parity.

Parity was achieved not just by revenue sharing. The non-guaranteed contracts probably helped much more than revenue sharing. That measure along helped stupid teams to catch up with smart teams.

flash04 · 03-23-2005, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

So socialism or communism? I think that's the argument among owners.

I don't think any of the owners are really for a free market, but rich teams are definitely against communism. I am using the description purely for the argument among owners, which is about revenue distribution, not parity.

Parity was achieved not just by revenue sharing. The non-guaranteed contracts probably helped much more than revenue sharing. That measure along helped stupid teams to catch up with smart teams.

Uh, socialism is when the government controls the economy. And communism is when the government controls the economy for the benefit of the workers.

I think a few owners would love the free market system. Jerry Jones and Danny Synder have been total failures in the salary cap system. The only way those two could be successful is if they completely outspend all the other teams.

Skipaway · 03-23-2005, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash04

Uh, socialism is when the government controls the economy. And communism is when the government controls the economy for the benefit of the workers.

I think a few owners would love the free market system. Jerry Jones and Danny Synder have been total failures in the salary cap system. The only way those two could be successful is if they completely outspend all the other teams.

I think you got the wrong definition of socialism and communism.

For economy, socialism is a very general term. It includes everything that favor all/majority of the members in the society, as opposed to capitalism which would favor the able, the rich, and the knowledgeable.

Communism means everything is shared by the community.

What NFL is doing right now by sharing pretty much everything is very close to communism, and McNair is correct in how that would be wrong if the league goes too far. Jones and Snyder are more like capitalism supporters, and they are successful in generating revenues. As all those good at making money, they hate communism or even socialism. All the revenue sharing is removing the incentives for creative marketing.

All these got little to do with salary cap or wining.

flash04 · 03-23-2005, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

I think you got the wrong definition of socialism and communism.

For economy, socialism is a very general term. It includes everything that favor all/majority of the members in the society, as opposed to capitalism which would favor the able, the rich, and the knowledgeable.

Communism means everything is shared by the community.

Ah, yes. When you said communism I assumed you mean't the Soviet Union version of Communism: The government was involved in planning every facet of the economy. Clearly, when Green Bay has the same economic strength that the two New York teams possess, that is communist. No team is the sceond biggest market? LA? They are communist.

Skipaway · 03-23-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flash04

Ah, yes. When you said communism I assumed you mean't the Soviet Union version of Communism: The government was involved in planning every facet of the economy. Clearly, when Green Bay has the same economic strength that the two New York teams possess, that is communist. No team is the sceond biggest market? LA? They are communist.

And I think NFL has probably reached its potential by this model.

Sharing most of the revenues might be healthy for the league, but it also breeds laziness. Why would anyone eager to put a team in LA if that wouldn't help them make more money than a team in much smaller cities? It costs more to put and operate a team in LA!

Also, we couldn't deny Dallas was quite innovative in its marketing campaigns. However, if most of the revenues are shared, why would owners bother? Trying harder wouldn't yield much more.

For a smart businessman, it'd be more attractive to spend time and effort in other businesses, and just let the NFL team sit idly as a cash cow.

03-22-2005, 04:36 AM	#1
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	Communism failing? http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=2018691 McNair is right that it would be wrong to take away incentive for clubs to increase their revenues. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

03-22-2005, 11:38 AM	#2
canadiancreed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,660	though this was old news. The communism failing apart that is __________________ PT21 PT22

03-22-2005, 12:01 PM	#3
eriqjaffe Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Location: Under The Christmas Fish Posts: 7,644	the fall of baseball communism? I remember it like it was yesterday... "John Henry, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" __________________

03-22-2005, 12:10 PM	#5
canadiancreed Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,660	though that happened in 1975 __________________ PT21 PT22

03-22-2005, 08:09 PM	#8
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 11,017	So socialism or communism? I think that's the argument among owners. I don't think any of the owners are really for a free market, but rich teams are definitely against communism. I am using the description purely for the argument among owners, which is about revenue distribution, not parity. Parity was achieved not just by revenue sharing. The non-guaranteed contracts probably helped much more than revenue sharing. That measure along helped stupid teams to catch up with smart teams. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.