Latest on the CBA

[Ursa Majoris]

See MLB. Look at the small market clubs. They have no chance.

Last ten World Series winners:

 

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks

2002 Anaheim Angels[

2003 Florida Marlins

2004 Boston Red Sox

2005 Chicago White Sox

2006 St. Louis Cardinals

2007 Boston Red Sox

2008 Philadelphia Phillies

2009 New York Yankees

2010 San Francisco Giants

 

Ten different teams and not all named Yankees or Red Sox. You do have a valid point as far as the ability to pay more goes but to say the smaller teams have no chance is overstating the case. Several other small teams have reached the WS in the same period.

[DMD]

Last ten World Series winners:

 

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks

2002 Anaheim Angels[

2003 Florida Marlins

2004 Boston Red Sox

2005 Chicago White Sox

2006 St. Louis Cardinals

2007 Boston Red Sox

2008 Philadelphia Phillies

2009 New York Yankees

2010 San Francisco Giants

 

Ten different teams and not all named Yankees or Red Sox. You do have a valid point as far as the ability to pay more goes but to say the smaller teams have no chance is overstating the case. Several other small teams have reached the WS in the same period.

 

I am not that well versed on baseball admittedly. Why is it that no team has repeated? Does it have anything to do with losing players the year after? I was under the impression that the Yankees were automatically awarded the best player off the WS champion team. Seriously - how much player movement is there in baseball?

[piratesownninjas]

Last ten World Series winners:

 

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks

2002 Anaheim Angels[

2003 Florida Marlins

2004 Boston Red Sox

2005 Chicago White Sox

2006 St. Louis Cardinals

2007 Boston Red Sox

2008 Philadelphia Phillies

2009 New York Yankees

2010 San Francisco Giants

 

Ten different teams and not all named Yankees or Red Sox. You do have a valid point as far as the ability to pay more goes but to say the smaller teams have no chance is overstating the case. Several other small teams have reached the WS in the same period.

Anaheim, Boston twice, Philly, Chicago and the Yankees are all big time markets. St. Louis is a mid level market and Florida is a miracle. Telling me who won doesn't tell the whole story. The Pirates, Brewers, and Royals are out before the season starts.

I'm talking about player movement and how they have the teams by the balls. Look at arbitration and teams stuck paying horrible contracts for the duration of the time. If you had the NFLPA as strong at the MLBPA you can go ahead and kill off the Packers and Steelers, along with a lot of other franchises with a storied past.

A union that strong isn't good for anyone but the players. Not the fans, not the owners, not the league.

[Scooby's Hubby]

Unlike in Baseball, there will always be a salary cap in football for several reasons, the biggest being that contracts cannot be guaranteed b/c of serious injuries and their frequency of occurance. Football owners will never pay players who are PUP and retired. In baseball, 100% of the contract is guaranteed money. If that happened in football, you would see only 1 year to 3 year contracts and an onslaught of free agency. Owners would be run out of business b/c they would be paying players who cannot play or may never play again and are counting against their salary cap. Eventually, your payroll would have many PUP players earning money never to suit up again.

[osu1322]

Last ten World Series winners:

 

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks

2002 Anaheim Angels[

2003 Florida Marlins

2004 Boston Red Sox

2005 Chicago White Sox

2006 St. Louis Cardinals

2007 Boston Red Sox

2008 Philadelphia Phillies

2009 New York Yankees

2010 San Francisco Giants

 

Ten different teams and not all named Yankees or Red Sox. You do have a valid point as far as the ability to pay more goes but to say the smaller teams have no chance is overstating the case. Several other small teams have reached the WS in the same period.

 

I honestly haven't followed baseball sense the Indians went in "97 (Screw you Jose Mesa!!!!!!) However baseball is able to develop good talent and make them great. I mean how many baseball player have u looked at and ask I wonder when he's going to retire??? Baseball is a less physical sport than football. How many NFL players do u see in thier 40's vs MLB players in theiir 40's?

 

Baseball also has minor league teams all over the place. from AAA to A ball. Heck even those team make money in their smaller markets. The NFL has nothing like that... Half the time u hear abrout a team signing a person to their practice squad who is working a regular 9-5 just cause they played in college a year ago...

[detlef]

Let's not pretend, for a second, that blowing up the salary cap is even on the table. In fact, maybe the NFLPA should be given credit for not going too far in a situation like this. That it has less to do with them being a "weak" union, but a reasonable one. Sure, perhaps baseball is a perfect example of a union effing things up for everyone (including themselves because dragging their feet so much on drug testing basically made it so their own union members had to either endanger their long-term health or risk losing their jobs to those who were willing to juice up).

 

But to then jump to the conclusion that a strong union is bad and a weaker one is good is rather elitist. There have been negotiations throughout history where labor and management both went to the table in good faith to come up with something that works for both sides. Not going for the jugular in every negotiation doesn't make you weak, it might make you smart. But, again, the assumption so many have is that management must know what is best because they're businessmen and any resistance from the union to cave to what they want must be based in short-sighted greed. And without data to support this, that is an unreasonable assumption.

 

How do we know this is the case? How do we know that management isn't needlessly squeezing labor because they know the public is pre-disposed to sympathize with them?

[Ursa Majoris]

Last ten World Series winners:

 

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks

2002 Anaheim Angels[

2003 Florida Marlins

2004 Boston Red Sox

2005 Chicago White Sox

2006 St. Louis Cardinals

2007 Boston Red Sox

2008 Philadelphia Phillies

2009 New York Yankees

2010 San Francisco Giants

 

Ten different teams and not all named Yankees or Red Sox. You do have a valid point as far as the ability to pay more goes but to say the smaller teams have no chance is overstating the case. Several other small teams have reached the WS in the same period.

My bad for failing to note that the Red Sox have won it twice.

 

There is indeed a hugh money influence in baseball but small market teams CAN reach the series. I am on the fence about guaranteed contracts, however.

[Ursa Majoris]

Telling me who won doesn't tell the whole story.

True. If I'd included the teams that made the WS but lost, the list would be more telling. Also, it is critical to remember that making the playoffs in baseball is a hundred times harder than any other sport.

[Jackass]

My bad for failing to note that the Red Sox have won it twice.

 

There is indeed a hugh money influence in baseball but small market teams CAN reach the series. I am on the fence about guaranteed contracts, however.

 

So you're saying there's a chance...

[Jackass]

True. If I'd included the teams that made the WS but lost, the list would be more telling. Also, it is critical to remember that making the playoffs in baseball is a hundred times harder than any other sport.

 

:

[detlef]

Anaheim, Boston twice, Philly, Chicago and the Yankees are all big time markets. St. Louis is a mid level market and Florida is a miracle. Telling me who won doesn't tell the whole story. The Pirates, Brewers, and Royals are out before the season starts.

I'm talking about player movement and how they have the teams by the balls. Look at arbitration and teams stuck paying horrible contracts for the duration of the time. If you had the NFLPA as strong at the MLBPA you can go ahead and kill off the Packers and Steelers, along with a lot of other franchises with a storied past.

A union that strong isn't good for anyone but the players. Not the fans, not the owners, not the league.

For starters, if Florida is a miracle, that miracle has come through often enough in the last 15 year that only one MLB franchise has won the series more often than they have during that span. Actually, their model is pretty sound. Gather young talent, win it all, trade off each and every one of the now highly coveted WS Champions for a whole mess of quality prospects and contend again in a couple more years.

 

Who won it all may not tell the whole picture but it's a good start and it's not like the NFL outshines them at all in this capacity. And if you peel back another layer and just discuss how many teams actually make the play-offs, I don't think it looks much better for the NFL (where, btw, 4 more teams make it each year despite having as many teams and fewer games to allow the wheat to separate from the chaff).

 

Regardless, can you honestly place the blame squarely on the players? Are we certain that some owners are simply not as committed to winning as others? After all, you hear much about teams who are receiving the luxury tax just pocketing the money. Maybe these bottom dwellers deserve to lose. I mean, their fans don't deserve it, of course. But MLB has KC, Pitt, and the Brewers (who did actually make the play-offs just a few years back). The NFL has Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The NFL may not have an equivalent franchises to the Yanks and Boston that completely out-spend everyone, but it's not as if either team has enjoyed a run much better than either the Steelers or Patriots.

 

So, maybe this disparity of payrolls is really much ado about nothing, because it doesn't seem to translate into the lack of parity everyone assumes it will. The numbers simply don't back it up.

 

OK, I had a hell of a time finding data for the exact same time frames, but found data from MLB from 1995-current and 2000-current for the NFL. This is actually convenient because there are 50% more teams included in the NFL play-offs each year, so the actual number of play-off spots is the same for the two sets despite the longer time frame for MLB.

 

Teams with zero appearances: MLB 4 (KC, Pitt, Toronto, Wash), NFL 3 (Buffalo, Houston, Det)

Teams with one appearance: MLB 2 (Detroit, Brewers), NFL 1( Cleveland)

Teams with two appearances: MLB 4 (Balt, Tampa, FL, Reds), NFL 6 (SF, AZ, Cinci, Jax, Wash, KC)

 

So, slight edge to the NFL because they have less teams with zero or one, but the same total teams with 2 or less (10 each)

 

So, that means, given a sample of the same number of play-off spots going back over the last decade or so, the same number of teams from each league have been pretty bad. Again, MLB certainly has the NFL beat in terms of number of teams who have won it all. Over the last 10 years, only Boston has won it twice in MLB and NE has won it 3 times and Pitt twice in the NFL.

 

Not seeing how the NFL's system certainly works better in terms of parity. It's just not there.

[Seahawks21]

For starters, if Florida is a miracle, that miracle has come through often enough in the last 15 year that only one MLB franchise has won the series more often than they have during that span. Actually, their model is pretty sound. Gather young talent, win it all, trade off each and every one of the now highly coveted WS Champions for a whole mess of quality prospects and contend again in a couple more years.

 

Who won it all may not tell the whole picture but it's a good start and it's not like the NFL outshines them at all in this capacity. And if you peel back another layer and just discuss how many teams actually make the play-offs, I don't think it looks much better for the NFL (where, btw, 4 more teams make it each year despite having as many teams and fewer games to allow the wheat to separate from the chaff).

 

Regardless, can you honestly place the blame squarely on the players? Are we certain that some owners are simply not as committed to winning as others? After all, you hear much about teams who are receiving the luxury tax just pocketing the money. Maybe these bottom dwellers deserve to lose. I mean, their fans don't deserve it, of course. But MLB has KC, Pitt, and the Brewers (who did actually make the play-offs just a few years back). The NFL has Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The NFL may not have an equivalent franchises to the Yanks and Boston that completely out-spend everyone, but it's not as if either team has enjoyed a run much better than either the Steelers or Patriots.

 

So, maybe this disparity of payrolls is really much ado about nothing, because it doesn't seem to translate into the lack of parity everyone assumes it will. The numbers simply don't back it up.

 

OK, I had a hell of a time finding data for the exact same time frames, but found data from MLB from 1995-current and 2000-current for the NFL. This is actually convenient because there are 50% more teams included in the NFL play-offs each year, so the actual number of play-off spots is the same for the two sets despite the longer time frame for MLB.

 

Teams with zero appearances: MLB 4 (KC, Pitt, Toronto, Wash), NFL 3 (Buffalo, Houston, Det)

Teams with one appearance: MLB 2 (Detroit, Brewers), NFL 1( Cleveland)

Teams with two appearances: MLB 4 (Balt, Tampa, FL, Reds), NFL 6 (SF, AZ, Cinci, Jax, Wash, KC)

 

So, slight edge to the NFL because they have less teams with zero or one, but the same total teams with 2 or less (10 each)

 

So, that means, given a sample of the same number of play-off spots going back over the last decade or so, the same number of teams from each league have been pretty bad. Again, MLB certainly has the NFL beat in terms of number of teams who have won it all. Over the last 10 years, only Boston has won it twice in MLB and NE has won it 3 times and Pitt twice in the NFL.

 

Not seeing how the NFL's system certainly works better in terms of parity. It's just not there.

Look at the records for the bottom 5 revenue earning teams in MLB over the past 10-20 years vs. that of the top 5 earning teams.

 

Sure, you've got the Lions, but the Lions will be good someday. You can't say the same about the Royals with any level of certainty.

[Jackass]

For starters, if Florida is a miracle, that miracle has come through often enough in the last 15 year that only one MLB franchise has won the series more often than they have during that span. Actually, their model is pretty sound. Gather young talent, win it all, trade off each and every one of the now highly coveted WS Champions for a whole mess of quality prospects and contend again in a couple more years.

 

Who won it all may not tell the whole picture but it's a good start and it's not like the NFL outshines them at all in this capacity. And if you peel back another layer and just discuss how many teams actually make the play-offs, I don't think it looks much better for the NFL (where, btw, 4 more teams make it each year despite having as many teams and fewer games to allow the wheat to separate from the chaff).

 

Regardless, can you honestly place the blame squarely on the players? Are we certain that some owners are simply not as committed to winning as others? After all, you hear much about teams who are receiving the luxury tax just pocketing the money. Maybe these bottom dwellers deserve to lose. I mean, their fans don't deserve it, of course. But MLB has KC, Pitt, and the Brewers (who did actually make the play-offs just a few years back). The NFL has Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. The NFL may not have an equivalent franchises to the Yanks and Boston that completely out-spend everyone, but it's not as if either team has enjoyed a run much better than either the Steelers or Patriots.

 

So, maybe this disparity of payrolls is really much ado about nothing, because it doesn't seem to translate into the lack of parity everyone assumes it will. The numbers simply don't back it up.

 

OK, I had a hell of a time finding data for the exact same time frames, but found data from MLB from 1995-current and 2000-current for the NFL. This is actually convenient because there are 50% more teams included in the NFL play-offs each year, so the actual number of play-off spots is the same for the two sets despite the longer time frame for MLB.

 

Teams with zero appearances: MLB 4 (KC, Pitt, Toronto, Wash), NFL 3 (Buffalo, Houston, Det)

Teams with one appearance: MLB 2 (Detroit, Brewers), NFL 1( Cleveland)

Teams with two appearances: MLB 4 (Balt, Tampa, FL, Reds), NFL 6 (SF, AZ, Cinci, Jax, Wash, KC)

 

So, slight edge to the NFL because they have less teams with zero or one, but the same total teams with 2 or less (10 each)

 

So, that means, given a sample of the same number of play-off spots going back over the last decade or so, the same number of teams from each league have been pretty bad. Again, MLB certainly has the NFL beat in terms of number of teams who have won it all. Over the last 10 years, only Boston has won it twice in MLB and NE has won it 3 times and Pitt twice in the NFL.

 

Not seeing how the NFL's system certainly works better in terms of parity. It's just not there.

 

that was a lot of analysis to come up with a conclusion that is pretty wrong.

 

i tell you what. i'll pick 5 baseball teams who i think will win the world series over the next 10 years and 5 teams who will finish with a losing record. you do the same with football. We'll see who wins.

[detlef]

Look at the records for the bottom 5 revenue earning teams in MLB over the past 10-20 years vs. that of the top 5 earning teams.

 

Sure, you've got the Lions, but the Lions will be good someday. You can't say the same about the Royals with any level of certainty.

When is "someday" for the Lions? I mean, we're getting excited about their play this past year because, for the first time in a while, they haven't been a complete joke. And they were still 6-10. Funny thing we mention the Lions. When I went to ESPN go get data, the lead story on the NFL page was how fragile their resurgence is. That, if Stafford can't stay healthy, they're doomed to revert. Revert to what? They won all of 6 games last year.

 

So, no, given the past, I just don't see why you should have any more faith in them than the Royals. I mean, what do you have to go on? The mid 90s when they actually assembled a decent team and made the play-offs like 2 or 3 years? What about before that? They sucked then as well. How many times in the last 30-40 years have they been good. At least KC was in the series in the late 80s and won it all not long before that.

 

What about Cleveland? Not since Kosar and Byner have they been at all good. Great, they went like 10-6 a year or two ago, then went right back to sucking mightily.

 

And, even if so, why can't that blame not be placed in the management of KC anyway? The data shows that teams other than NY and Boston can compete and win it all and do so in a manner that is no worse than the NFL. And, again, MLB has a luxury tax to help teams with low payrolls compete. Do we know these teams are actually putting that money back in?

 

that was a lot of analysis to come up with a conclusion that is pretty wrong.

 

i tell you what. i'll pick 5 baseball teams who i think will win the world series over the next 10 years and 5 teams who will finish with a losing record. you do the same with football. We'll see who wins.

So, in light of hard data that shows there's been more different champions over the last 10 years and no more teams that have failed to somewhat consistently make the last 120 play-off spots. Both clearly illustrating that there are just as many reliably bad teams in the NFL and actually less reliably great teams. You're refuting that by speculating what we might find to be the case over the next 10 years?

 

Sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument. I mean, why guess at what's going to happen. We've got proof right in front of our faces.

 

Regardless, keep in mind, that the burden is not on me to prove MLB is a more even playing field, I merely need to show it's no worse. And I think the data illustrates that abundantly. If someone is going to refute that, they need to with data that does so. Not, "can you honestly say you think KC will win it all?" That's a BS argument. Who thought Tampa was going to make a run a few years ago?

Edited February 18, 2011 by detlef

[tazinib1]

The first positive sign since this has started has begun:

 

WASHINGTON (AP)—The contentious NFL labor negotiations went in front of a federal mediator Friday, two weeks before owners could impose a lockout on players and threaten the 2011 season.

 

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, players’ union executive director DeMaurice Smith and their bargaining teams arrived at the Washington office of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service shortly before 11 a.m. It was not known how long the meeting would last.

 

Goodell was accompanied by NFL outside counsel Bob Batterman and the league’s lead labor negotiator, Jeff Pash. No team owners were seen entering the building. About 15 minutes after Goodell showed up, Smith walked in, joined by union lawyer Richard Berthelsen, Pittsburgh Steelers backup quarterback Charlie Batch(notes) and former player Jim McFarland, a member of the NFL Players Association’s executive committee.

 

Goodell and Smith declined comment on their way into the meeting with George H. Cohen, the director of the FMCS, an independent U.S. government agency.

 

“We’re going to participate fully, and we look forward to working with Mr. Cohen,” Pash told The Associated Press.

 

Asked what progress he expects to come from mediation, Pash replied: “We don’t know.”

 

NFLPA spokesman George Atallah said: “We’re not going to make any comments or talk about what happens in today’s negotiating session.”

 

More than two hours later, Atallah and NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tweeted a joint statement saying the mediation process has begun and both sides agreed to Cohen’s request not to make any public comment.

 

Cohen announced Thursday that both sides had agreed to have him participate in talks. Mediation is not binding.

 

The current collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of the day March 3, and the union has said it expects a lockout to come as soon as the next day.

 

News of the start of mediation could be a positive sign after several months of infrequent negotiations.

 

The league and union went more than two months without holding any formal bargaining sessions, until a meeting Feb. 5, the day before the Super Bowl. The sides met again once last week but called off a second meeting that had been scheduled for the following day.

 

The most recent CBA was signed in 2006, but owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.

 

The biggest issue separating the sides is how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues. Among the other significant points in negotiations: the owners’ push to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 while reducing the preseason by two games; a rookie wage scale; and benefits for retired players.

 

Cohen was involved in Major League Soccer’s negotiations with its players’ union last year, when a possible work stoppage was avoided. Cohen also has worked with the players’ associations for Major League Baseball, helping end the 1994-95 strike as a consulting attorney, and the NBA, and was an advisor to the NHL players’ union before joining the FMCS.

 

The FMCS also became involved in negotiations during the 2004-05 NHL lockout, and a 2005 dispute between the U.S. Soccer Federation and its players.

[piratesownninjas]

Let's not pretend, for a second, that blowing up the salary cap is even on the table. In fact, maybe the NFLPA should be given credit for not going too far in a situation like this. That it has less to do with them being a "weak" union, but a reasonable one. Sure, perhaps baseball is a perfect example of a union effing things up for everyone (including themselves because dragging their feet so much on drug testing basically made it so their own union members had to either endanger their long-term health or risk losing their jobs to those who were willing to juice up).

 

But to then jump to the conclusion that a strong union is bad and a weaker one is good is rather elitist. There have been negotiations throughout history where labor and management both went to the table in good faith to come up with something that works for both sides. Not going for the jugular in every negotiation doesn't make you weak, it might make you smart. But, again, the assumption so many have is that management must know what is best because they're businessmen and any resistance from the union to cave to what they want must be based in short-sighted greed. And without data to support this, that is an unreasonable assumption.

 

How do we know this is the case? How do we know that management isn't needlessly squeezing labor because they know the public is pre-disposed to sympathize with them?

I was listening to Jeff Saturday (I think) on Colin Cowherd. He gave the opinion that this whole thing is really over revenue spending between the owners, and that it's just easier to squeeze the NFLPA. The more and more I hear, the more I'm nuetral. Although I think Demaurice Smith is a dbag no matter what.

 

For starters, if Florida is a miracle, that miracle has come through often enough in the last 15 year that only one MLB franchise has won the series more often than they have during that span. Actually, their model is pretty sound. Gather young talent, win it all, trade off each and every one of the now highly coveted WS Champions for a whole mess of quality prospects and contend again in a couple more years.

Tell that to the fans. All 300 who show up.

[detlef]

Tell that to the fans. All 300 who show up.

And the Cubs haven't won dick in like 90 years, but they sell out. Are Marlins fans really not coming out because they've only won the 2nd most MLB titles in the last 15 years? They're not that bad of a team. Besides the WS Championships, it's not like they fall into oblivion otherwise. Since their last title, they've been above .500 more often than they have been below it.

[Big John]

And the Cubs haven't won dick in like 90 years, but they sell out.

102 now. Last won in 1908.

[Jackass]

When is "someday" for the Lions? I mean, we're getting excited about their play this past year because, for the first time in a while, they haven't been a complete joke. And they were still 6-10. Funny thing we mention the Lions. When I went to ESPN go get data, the lead story on the NFL page was how fragile their resurgence is. That, if Stafford can't stay healthy, they're doomed to revert. Revert to what? They won all of 6 games last year.

 

So, no, given the past, I just don't see why you should have any more faith in them than the Royals. I mean, what do you have to go on? The mid 90s when they actually assembled a decent team and made the play-offs like 2 or 3 years? What about before that? They sucked then as well. How many times in the last 30-40 years have they been good. At least KC was in the series in the late 80s and won it all not long before that.

 

What about Cleveland? Not since Kosar and Byner have they been at all good. Great, they went like 10-6 a year or two ago, then went right back to sucking mightily.

 

And, even if so, why can't that blame not be placed in the management of KC anyway? The data shows that teams other than NY and Boston can compete and win it all and do so in a manner that is no worse than the NFL. And, again, MLB has a luxury tax to help teams with low payrolls compete. Do we know these teams are actually putting that money back in?

 

 

So, in light of hard data that shows there's been more different champions over the last 10 years and no more teams that have failed to somewhat consistently make the last 120 play-off spots. Both clearly illustrating that there are just as many reliably bad teams in the NFL and actually less reliably great teams. You're refuting that by speculating what we might find to be the case over the next 10 years?

 

Sorry, but that's a pretty weak argument. I mean, why guess at what's going to happen. We've got proof right in front of our faces.

 

Regardless, keep in mind, that the burden is not on me to prove MLB is a more even playing field, I merely need to show it's no worse. And I think the data illustrates that abundantly. If someone is going to refute that, they need to with data that does so. Not, "can you honestly say you think KC will win it all?" That's a BS argument. Who thought Tampa was going to make a run a few years ago?

 

 

i wish i could make that bet with you, it would be the easiest money i ever made - but since it would take too long to decide a winner, it would be pointless.

[piratesownninjas]

detlef=intense.

[detlef]

i wish i could make that bet with you, it would be the easiest money i ever made - but since it would take too long to decide a winner, it would be pointless.

What I wish is that you would try to refute my points with actual arguments rather than, "I know I'm right, but it would take too long to prove it." Again, why do we need to guess what will happen in the next 10 years when we can just look back at the last 10?

 

And there are so many built-in reasons that have nothing to do with how well the league manages to financially level the playing field that makes the NFL seem more competitive.

 

One I already addressed, despite having nearly the same number of teams, 12 make the NFL play-offs, 8 make the MLB. The other is how many games you play. 162 is going to separate the wheat from the chaff a whole lot more than 16. Consider this; over the last 4 years, there have been as many total teams that have finished an NFL season with a record below .200 as their have been MLB teams that have finished below .400. If the worst teams in the NFL were just barely below .400, they'd all be "a lucky break here or a lucky break there" away from the play-offs. Right? 9-7 can make the play-offs and, since many games are decided by a few big plays, a 6-10 or 7-9 team could be just a number of those plays away from making it. So, everyone has a chance. And once you get into the play-offs, same story. Get hot and win all of two straight games? You're in the SB.

 

Not in MLB. You could finish .500 and have been essentially out of it for the last month of the season, because you were 10 games out and behind 5 other teams for the wild card. Simply because of how many games you have to play. A few lucky breaks here or there won't mean a thing to a lower-tier franchise in the MLB, but we've sure seen that happen in the NFL. Some team catches fire in a bottle for 5 straight games and they can make the play-offs even if they play sup .500 ball the rest of the season. Not in the MLB. Nor will a slow start derail a top franchise. The Yankees or Red Sox could stumble out the gate 5-20 and still make it back, because they have 140 more games to get on track. If they win 2/3 of their remaining games, they're likely in. If NE starts out 1-5, they're likely toast. If they win 2/3 of their remaining games, they're done. And this says nothing of how hard it is for an upstart team to advance if they make the play-offs. I mentioned before, sneak into the playoffs in the NFL and get hot for two games? SB bound. Do the same in MLB and get hot for 2 straight games, you're not even on to the next round yet.

 

So, there are two things that absolutely make the playing field seem more level that have nothing to reasons that get typically brought up. And yet, despite that, MLB still holds it's own. As I illustrated several posts above. So, where is the data that supports how much more competitive the NFL is?

 

So, really. Why not point to something? Something we've actually seen. Something that actually illustrates the point you're trying to make.

Edited February 19, 2011 by detlef

[detlef]

Something else that bears mention. Since 2002, which is really when the top (in particular the Yanks) started really pulling away, there have been exactly as many WS contestants who's payroll was in the bottom 20% as there have been from the top 20%. Four each (Yankees and Boston twice each who were 1st and 2nd respectively when they appeared and went 3-1) and (Tampa, Texas, Colorado, and FL who were 29th, 27th, 25th, and 25th when they appeared and went 1-3)

 

Oh, and the Royals? One of those teams that doesn't stand a chance before the season ever starts? Their payroll has been among the bottom 20% only 3 of those 9 seasons and none of the last 4. So, maybe the Royals management just sucks and it's not the MLBPA's fault.

[Jackass]

What I wish is that you would try to refute my points with actual arguments rather than, "I know I'm right, but it would take too long to prove it." Again, why do we need to guess what will happen in the next 10 years when we can just look back at the last 10?

 

And there are so many built-in reasons that have nothing to do with how well the league manages to financially level the playing field that makes the NFL seem more competitive.

 

One I already addressed, despite having nearly the same number of teams, 12 make the NFL play-offs, 8 make the MLB. The other is how many games you play. 162 is going to separate the wheat from the chaff a whole lot more than 16. Consider this; over the last 4 years, there have been as many total teams that have finished an NFL season with a record below .200 as their have been MLB teams that have finished below .400. If the worst teams in the NFL were just barely below .400, they'd all be "a lucky break here or a lucky break there" away from the play-offs. Right? 9-7 can make the play-offs and, since many games are decided by a few big plays, a 6-10 or 7-9 team could be just a number of those plays away from making it. So, everyone has a chance. And once you get into the play-offs, same story. Get hot and win all of two straight games? You're in the SB.

 

Not in MLB. You could finish .500 and have been essentially out of it for the last month of the season, because you were 10 games out and behind 5 other teams for the wild card. Simply because of how many games you have to play. A few lucky breaks here or there won't mean a thing to a lower-tier franchise in the MLB, but we've sure seen that happen in the NFL. Some team catches fire in a bottle for 5 straight games and they can make the play-offs even if they play sup .500 ball the rest of the season. Not in the MLB. Nor will a slow start derail a top franchise. The Yankees or Red Sox could stumble out the gate 5-20 and still make it back, because they have 140 more games to get on track. If they win 2/3 of their remaining games, they're likely in. If NE starts out 1-5, they're likely toast. If they win 2/3 of their remaining games, they're done. And this says nothing of how hard it is for an upstart team to advance if they make the play-offs. I mentioned before, sneak into the playoffs in the NFL and get hot for two games? SB bound. Do the same in MLB and get hot for 2 straight games, you're not even on to the next round yet.

 

So, there are two things that absolutely make the playing field seem more level that have nothing to reasons that get typically brought up. And yet, despite that, MLB still holds it's own. As I illustrated several posts above. So, where is the data that supports how much more competitive the NFL is?

 

So, really. Why not point to something? Something we've actually seen. Something that actually illustrates the point you're trying to make.

 

your threads are way too long for me to read. this is like having an argument that the sky is blue.

[detlef]

your threads are way too long for me to read. this is like having an argument that the sky is blue.

That's fine. Just make one argument. Just one. And saying, "I know that time would prove I'm right" is not an argument. According to you, proving me wrong should be like shooting fish in a barrel. Well then, go ahead and shoot a fish. Just one.

Edited February 19, 2011 by detlef

[bushwacked]

your threads are way too long for me to read.