La Dodgers bought for 2 BILLION dollars.

[Postman]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And yet MLB is second only to the NFL in total revenue, and is more profitable than either the NBA or NHL which have salary caps.

Baseball used to be first. That was a position that many (including me) thought was unassailable.

The NFL offers true parity to the fans, and they're getting more of the sport fan's entertainment dollar because of it.

[rjl518]

ill just take 1 percent of that price and im set for life!

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by rjl518

ill just take 1 percent of that price and im set for life!

Oh, I would be as well. Make a couple of smart investments, put most of the rest away in savings, I would still be able to give a good chunk of change to charity, and I personally would be set.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Postman

Oh, please, you're just arguing semantics. Moneyball is all about trying to achieve competitive balance in a game that's unfairly skewed toward teams from large markets.

What Beane did is seen amongst the Baseball fans with whom I've come into contact as a valiant, ingenious effort to overcome the bias built into Baseball which ultimately failed... and in so doing proves the need for a cap.

Did we read the same book? Moneyball isn't about achieving competitive balance. Moneyball is about winning more with less.

You think Beane's goal is to have all teams having the same chance of winning? Not at all. Beane's goal is to win more than others. The guy is so competitive that he couldn't watch the game, you think he was aiming to be just as good as others?

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Postman

Baseball used to be first. That was a position that many (including me) thought was unassailable.

The NFL offers true parity to the fans, and they're getting more of the sport fan's entertainment dollar because of it.

I don't see how parity is attracting more fans. When parity happens in a college football conference, that would be a conference people write off.

The most popular soccer leagues in the world are all top heavy. Balanced ones just don't attract as many fans.

I for one like football more when it was all about Cowboys vs. 49ers.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Postman

Baseball used to be first. That was a position that many (including me) thought was unassailable.

The NFL is top dog in terms of revenue only because of its national television contracts. For some reason Americans just love to watch football on TV.

Originally Posted by Postman

The NFL offers true parity to the fans...

What exactly is your definition of "true parity?"

[oman19]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For some reason Americans just love to watch football on TV.

Well there are 2 reasons Americans love to watch the NFL on TV.

1) Betting on the game in some form or another. Period

2) I do believe it has to do with pairity. All across the country no matter which team is your team you never feel more than 3 or 4 years away. Keep in mind this is coming from a Lions fan. lmao

When was the last time the Padres, Royals, or Pirates fans ever felt they stood a real chance? Granted their ownership doesn't do the things they need to in order to win but in the NFL the system doesn't reward owners for hoarding money.

A team like Green Bay could NEVER exist in any other sport.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

What exactly is your definition of "true parity?"

My definition, or what I would like to see.

All teams have the same resources to work with. The decisions you make on how to allocate those resources are what ultimely decides if you win and lose on the field. The amount of resources you have isn't decided by your market size, TV contract, or owners pockets.

In my perfect sports league all teams would have the exact same budget for scouting, player dev, player salaries. All teams would take whatever income they have and give it to the league and league distribute it equally among all teams. Salary Floors and Caps would be in place to prevent owners from not spending or spending to much. All for one and one for all.

I think that the reason the NFL is #1 is that no team is to far away from being competitive keeps all 32 fan bases energized and passionate.

[rudel.dietrich]

That is all well and good except the NFL is not #1 in parity. And all 32 teams have just as little chance of winning as teams in other sports.
Teams like the Browns, Jaguars, Bucs, Raiders and Panthers have been bad for almost a decade or over a decade.

Teams like the Panthers and Jaguars are in danger of losing their franchises.
I just don't see the parity.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

That is all well and good except the NFL is not #1 in parity. And all 32 teams have just as little chance of winning as teams in other sports.
Teams like the Browns, Jaguars, Bucs, Raiders and Panthers have been bad for almost a decade or over a decade.

Teams like the Panthers and Jaguars are in danger of losing their franchises.
I just don't see the parity.

Listen teams are going to be bad for 10+ years sometimes in a league with 32 teams but all those teams have had glimpes of success in the last 10 years minus the Browns. They are not constant last place teams. Heck 3 of the teams you mentioned were in serious playoff contention in the last 2 years.

You may have heard something I have not but never have heard anything about the Panthers re-locating. The Jaguars I have but your going to have teams threat that as long as L.A. is without a team.

The best thing ever to happen to the NFL is to have L.A. without a franchise so they can use that to threaten any city that doesn't want to help with a new stadium.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

For some reason Americans just love to watch football on TV.

With only 8 home games a year the prices of tickets are sky high. With only 16 games a year missing one game means you've missed a fair amount of season importance. Missing a NBA game doesn't mean much, missing a MLB game means even less. Football games are also mostly on weekends when far more people aren't working. I imagine that plays a big part.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by oman19

My definition, or what I would like to see.

All teams have the same resources to work with. The decisions you make on how to allocate those resources are what ultimely decides if you win and lose on the field. The amount of resources you have isn't decided by your market size, TV contract, or owners pockets.

In my perfect sports league all teams would have the exact same budget for scouting, player dev, player salaries. All teams would take whatever income they have and give it to the league and league distribute it equally among all teams. Salary Floors and Caps would be in place to prevent owners from not spending or spending to much. All for one and one for all.

I think that the reason the NFL is #1 is that no team is to far away from being competitive keeps all 32 fan bases energized and passionate.

In my opinion that would be lame. Sports is all about the underdog story. Like when the Red Sox came back from being down by three games against the Yankees, to win the ALCS. Or when the USA defeated the USSR in a hockey rink.

That's what makes sports so great.

[dudeosu]

Originally Posted by Vinny P.

In my opinion that would be lame. Sports is all about the underdog story. Like when the Red Sox came back from being down by three games against the Yankees, to win the ALCS. Or when the USA defeated the USSR in a hockey rink.

That's what makes sports so great.

Not if you're the Yankees or Soviets.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by dudeosu

Not if you're the Yankees or Soviets.

Wounding their pride? Sure.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by Vinny P.

In my opinion that would be lame. Sports is all about the underdog story. Like when the Red Sox came back from being down by three games against the Yankees, to win the ALCS. Or when the USA defeated the USSR in a hockey rink.

That's what makes sports so great.

You will still get that. I mean there are always teams that are going to be better because better scouting or they have the best player of the league, different organizational philosophies etc. Just because of teams are close in revenue doesn't mean all teams will be the same. Not everyteam will have a Alber Pujols or Peyton Manning.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by oman19

When was the last time the Padres, Royals, or Pirates fans ever felt they stood a real chance?

There are far fewer Padres fans, Royals fans, and Pirates fans. Giving those teams the same chance to win as the Yankees is not a good idea.

Look at WWE, a scripted sports show, with scripts designed to maximize fan interest. You don't see everybody getting the same chance to "win", because that's bad for business.

Variety is needed, otherwise you don't have good story lines. However, that means giving minor casts a chance here and there could be useful, but we should never treat all casts as equal.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by oman19

Granted their ownership doesn't do the things they need to in order to win but in the NFL the system doesn't reward owners for hoarding money.

In which way doesn't the NFL reward owners for hoarding money? If you are an owner, even doing nothing you are guaranteed tons of income. Even if you run the team horribly, due to all the salary and roster restrictions, you might even luck into a good season or two here and there.

Those things are much less likely in leagues that doesn't force parity as much.

There are few sports leagues that award bad owners as much as NFL.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by oman19

You will still get that. I mean there are always teams that are going to be better because better scouting or they have the best player of the league, different organizational philosophies etc. Just because of teams are close in revenue doesn't mean all teams will be the same. Not everyteam will have a Alber Pujols or Peyton Manning.

Oh, I was thinking in terms of a league with 100% parity, all things being equal.

But, I don't think baseball really needs to operate in the manner you called though. I am of the philosophy that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Professional baseball has endured for 140 years (The MLB-style World Series playoffs for 113 years.) And it continues to endure with high ratings.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

There are far fewer Padres fans, Royals fans, and Pirates fans. Giving those teams the same chance to win as the Yankees is not a good idea.

But there would be quite a bit more of those fans if those teams were ever relevant. Kansas City used to be a thriving baseball town. Same goes for Pittsburgh. These teams are losing GENERATIONS of fans and baseball is too as a result.

My own team the Tigers are lucky to become relevant when they did. I was old enough to remember when I was a kid when the Tigers were good, but my brother who is 5 years younger couldn't remember a Tigers team there ever was relevant. All he could remember is 15 years of some pretty bad baseball. It was crazieness talking to him and his buddies and how little they cared for baseball as a result.

Some of them came to the game when the Tigers made their run in 2006 but some did not. They just didn't get why people liked baseball and the reason they didn't is because they didn't grow up watching it. These kids were huge sports fans but just not baseball fans and the Tigers not being good had a HUGE reason to do with that. Luckily the Tigers are relevant and sure enough my cousin's kids are talking about Tigers and go as far to argue over who the #5 starter should be.

[oman19]

Originally Posted by Vinny P.

Oh, I was thinking in terms of a league with 100% parity, all things being equal.

But, I don't think baseball really needs to operate in the manner you called though. I am of the philosophy that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Professional baseball has endured for 140 years (The MLB-style World Series playoffs for 113 years.) And it continues to endure with high ratings.

I respect your opinion but tell a fan in Kansas City or Pittsburgh it isn't broke.