On the one hand we have one team that outspends outbids the others. Almost to the point where it crosses the line of competitive fairness. It's dying a slow death and if it wasn't for the "Juice Era" would probably be dead on the vine.

On the other hand we have revenue sharing where the smartest team usually wins. (Even as smart as taping the teams walk throughs but I don't want to digress)The teams that over pay usually don't compete for the "Grand Prize". (Think Dallas and the Redskins) Just look at the Pittsburgh Steelers vs. The Pirates. One can compete very well while the other is an also ran.

I wonder if some of you elephant cheerleaders can stop and actually let this digest. Why is it that "Green Bay" can win? Why is it that ALL teams have a reasonable shot at the playoffs every 5 years.

I know the answer and it has something to do with an even playing field and an idea called sharing.

Discuss

(04-04-2009 08:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Why is it that ALL teams have a reasonable shot at the playoffs every 5 years.

Well, for one, the suckiest teams usually get the best draft choices, i.e. best available players, something that probably wouldn't happen in any other profession But that doesn't seem to help the Detroit Lions or the Cubs.


If you're trying to equate a socialist agenda to parity in sports I'd have to disagree with you. I'd say winning is a combination of leadership, planning, motivation, chemistry, attitude, dedication, experience and using people to do the things they're good at rather than what you want them to be good at. That's why we sometimes see superstars get traded or winning coaches change teams and totally bomb. Oddly enough, in the real world, unions discourage all of the above attributes or at least make them irrelevant.

You can also say that teams tend to keep either the best players or the best players they can afford. Under performers are dumped and kicked to the curb. Try to do that in a real world unionized government or corporate job and all hell would break loose.

I'

Quote:d say winning is a combination of leadership, planning, motivation, chemistry, attitude, dedication, experience and using people to do the things they're good at rather than what you want them to be good at.

So............... Your saying the Yankees have this in abundance while a team like.... the Cleveland Indians doesn't. So an organization who brought you Manny, Thome, Sexson, Belle, CC Sabathia, Kenny Lofton, and Omar Vizquel. Do you realize how many Hall of Famers went through the Indians organization these last ten years but they can't afford to keep them. Sorry...... that dog doesn't hunt. The NFL is better because they pool revenue and it's shared.

(04-04-2009 08:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'

Quote:d say winning is a combination of leadership, planning, motivation, chemistry, attitude, dedication, experience and using people to do the things they're good at rather than what you want them to be good at.

So............... Your saying the Yankees have this in abundance while a team like.... the Cleveland Indians doesn't. So an organization who brought you Manny, Thome, Sexson, Belle, CC Sabathia, Kenny Lofton, and Omar Vizquel. Do you realize how many Hall of Famers went through the Indians organization these last ten years but they can't afford to keep them. Sorry...... that dog doesn't hunt. The NFL is better because they pool revenue and it's shared.

So what you're saying is that successful teams (companies?) should subsidize other teams that can't compete? In sports that makes a little sense because without other teams there would be no one to play against. But in the business world the idea is to stomp on your competition and not be forced to subsidize an inferior product that eventually could eat at your profits.

Would you agree to a salary cap for employees?

Mach, I should also add that on most major league teams only a few players make the really big bucks and many make only a fraction of that. Change the word player to employee and I think the liberal side of you would find that unfair.

The Yankees may outbid to get great players but they haven't won in forever. If you think you can win by just bringing players in and out you are mistaken. A team is like a precise equation, every time you start adding/trading players you throw in a bunch of variables that just keep taking you farther and farther from the answer.

This was stupid 6 mos ago when you first posted. It's still stupid.

You come in to issues at a 100,000 ft perspective, then you think it's "analysis" to dig deep to a 95,000 ft perspective. Superficial is your deepest Mach. Vague generalities, no validation, no factual details, you avoid all the hard work. No wonder you never come to any sound conclusions.

none of the Pro-Leagues are what I would call Free Market, that includes MLB without a Salary Cap, they are capitalistic for the most part though.

a Free Market sports league, would not have team owners but League owners. i.e. one ownership group would own say, the NFC East, another the NFC South, etc. The way sports teams are structured, the larger market teams generally generate the most money for the simple fact they have the most fans(= most ticket sales, merchandis sales, etc).


the only true Free Market sports out there aren't Team related: Golf, Tennis....probably Nascar(which is setup similar to what I'm talking about above).

historical sidenote: DIY that almost all Sports we enjoy today were created for the most part in 19th Century Britain or America?

anyway, watch this explained much better here. Fast fwd to 22:20 or so here



its interesting how Iran loves Soccer, even though its of British Orgins. they aren't willing to throw that overboard yet, they do however refuse to wear Neck Ties because they view it as a symbol of Anglo-Christianity.

(04-06-2009 09:33 AM)GGniner Wrote:  none of the Pro-Leagues are what I would call Free Market, that includes MLB without a Salary Cap, they are capitalistic for the most part though.

a Free Market sports league, would not have team owners but League owners. i.e. one ownership group would own say, the NFC East, another the NFC South, etc. The way sports teams are structured, the larger market teams generally generate the most money for the simple fact they have the most fans(= most ticket sales, merchandis sales, etc).


the only true Free Market sports out there aren't Team related: Golf, Tennis....probably Nascar(which is setup similar to what I'm talking about above).

You touch on some great points. This "question" can only be answered by first getting the definitions correct. Skewing or misunderstanding the terms seems to be a common issue w/ the political left. Let's just hope they don't teach the next generation those same mistakes. (What? D'OH!)

First, what is the market we're talking about? "Football" isn't a market, "entertainment" is the market.

NFL owners don't compete against each other, except on the field. They are franchise owners of one company. They work together to build their company: the NFL.

Who they compete against is: NBA, MLB, NASCAR, PGA, bowling alleys, TV programming, movie theatres, etc. And Mach, you might notice the NFL doesn't share much w/ them.

The NFL is a highly efficient company. A true model. MLB is not as well run. Thus if they really shared like you seem to think they should, the NFL would help support the MLB, despite their mistakes. Maybe they'd give them money, or Royals fans would get free tix to Chiefs games. In the end, the NFL would be hurt by this approach.

Sometimes the NFL does share, only it's called teaming. They may let a movie use NFL logos or other property, but all such relationships are designed to enhance the NFL. That the other side benefits too just proves that the market does allow for "win-win" situations, and economics is not a "zero sum game". That's why capitalism works, many people can benefit.

take it to the next "entertainment" step. perhaps Hollywood should jump in with the profit sharing with the NFL, MLB, NBA, etc?

Perhaps, Spielberg, Sean Penn, etc. should have a Salary Cap imposed on them? They don't, other than the Union of the Writers and others behind cameras.

If we continue down this path, I want to see Obama tell Oprah how much money she can make.


Obama to Jay-Z: "Hey bro, you can't make but $500k/year....please continue the Palin bashing raps for me though!"

(04-06-2009 09:40 AM)GGniner Wrote:  historical sidenote: DIY that almost all Sports we enjoy today were created for the most part in 19th Century Britain or America?

I did actually. It is no coincidence that those prosperous economies allowed such a thing as "free time" to pursue recreation and entertainment.

Quote:its interesting how Iran loves Soccer, even though its of British Orgins. they aren't willing to throw that overboard yet, they do however refuse to wear Neck Ties because they view it as a symbol of Anglo-Christianity.

What's too often missing is how the Quakers pushed forward their up front pricing, out of a Christian conviction to have "just scales" and deal honestly with people. Such an approach was unprecedented, and was enourmous in propelling the US and UK economies forward.
-People could spend more time working, rather than haggling.
-Competition meant consumers were getting a good price, and they could use more resources toward building.
-Strangers were no longer exploited by shopkeepers, thus immigrants could use their skills and industriousness to contribute to the economy.

his point goes deeper into it in that in 19th century Britain or America, is where they were created in the way we play them today for the most part, all over the world. The Rules and Regulations that were created to make the games the most fun to watch, the thrill of it, etc. Connects it to the Thrill of Capitalism and Economic Growth/Risk, and so on.


its fascinating, he's getting pretty deep with it. traces it back to when the Catholic church was finally defeated in Britain and how things were really opened up and basically the worldview and thought process that was given birth which produced British Common Law, Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand", Science(Francis Bacon), Sports, etc......all related to a Certain Worldview.

He goes back to the Bible and Abraham's call to the "Promise Land"....to Oliver Cromwell and the first "Evil Empire" speech.

anyway, I find this stuff extremely fascinating, only reason bringing it up. Oddly enough in an NFL/MLB salary cap thread.

(04-06-2009 09:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What's too often missing is how the Quakers pushed forward their up front pricing, out of a Christian conviction to have "just scales" and deal honestly with people. Such an approach was unprecedented, and was enourmous in propelling the US and UK economies forward.

So those CarMax commercials ... those were Quakers?

anybody remember the Wrestling guy's attempt at a more free market oriented Football league? the XFL I think it was, with players like "He Hate Me". That failed of course, but the idea of paying by game for perfomance would improve the game, it would be more like Golf at that point also.

given how most of these leagues were formed, I don't really oppose the Salary Caps so much, but then I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, which conservatives aren't...I do oppose the Players Unions though.

of course there are examples of small budget, small market teams like the Florida Marlins winning the world series over the Yankees to point to, which says this isn't an absolute guarantee on who wins and loses.

that said, look at the Detroit Lions wanting to trade the #1 pick(there is no rookie Salary cap in the NFL). I don't blame them the #1 pick will demand a huge contract, you can get alot more bang for the buck a few picks down in the draft. So unless you are drafting the next Peyton Manning its hardly worth it.

the Panthers have their own problems thanks to the Cap with Julius Peppers. He wants out, they franchised him and have to pay him $17 mil next season(he's not worth it), this is keeping them from signing any new players which they need badly on Defense. They also have a hard time trading him for whats he's worth, partly because the team he goes to has to justify him eating up a huge amount of Cap space. Plus the fact he refuses to sign his tender and.

No question though, that the last decade of the NFL has been its most exciting in terms of competition and the Super Bowls.

(04-06-2009 12:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-06-2009 09:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What's too often missing is how the Quakers pushed forward their up front pricing, out of a Christian conviction to have "just scales" and deal honestly with people. Such an approach was unprecedented, and was enourmous in propelling the US and UK economies forward.

So those CarMax commercials ... those were Quakers?

And the original Saturn dealerships.

[quote='GGniner' pid='4208165' dateline='1239038945']
anybody remember the Wrestling guy's attempt at a more free market oriented Football league? the XFL I think it was, with players like "He Hate Me". That failed of course, but the idea of paying by game for perfomance would improve the game, it would be more like Golf at that point also.[quote]

I have long argued that the NFL should come up w/ a formula so that each player is paid according to his performance.

First there would be a base salary, realtively low by NFL standards. Then each position is given some metrics, and a player is judged accordingly.

RB- yds, yd/rush, TDs
QB- QB rating, rush yards.
DE- sacks, tackles, hurries

And W/L may be a part of that too. After all, it's all about winning. Also b/c there are some areas where it's hard to judge performance, FB who does a great job blocking, or a DB who covers his guy so well there aren't passes thrown that way, may not have the obvious great stats.

This way guys get rewarded every year they play well, there are no contract years to play great, then get soft. And every team in the league has the same pay rate, switching teams would happen far less.

However, it's easy to see the situation get complicated quickly. And you run the risk of teams not innovating, since it may be unclear what a guys pay is. I think some of this can be worked out...if they can do the QB formula rating, they can do this.

NFL does pay on perfomance better than the other big leagues(NBA and MLB) for one main reason. Still not perfect.

the players don't make as much, their careers are very short in comparison and there aren't as many games. They definitely tend to perform better in the last years of their contracts.

MLB players can have careers lasting into their 40's making $10/mil a year. Linemen, Runningbacks and most positions in the NFL don't last near as long, and don't make near as much.


Then you have cases like Grant Hill in the NBA who was making over $10 Mil/year and not playing a single game because contract was guranteed and he was severly injured.