Which system is better: NFL or Baseball

Baseball's system of heavy revenue sharing combined with a punitive luxury tax works very much like a progressive income tax, so I really don't know what you're trying to say here. More than $300 million is being transferred this season from the so-called rich to the so-called poor. The NFL's system, where every club shares all of the revenues evenly, is closer to pure socialism.

 

This comparison of sports economics vs. economics in society is silly.

The economics of sports are in their own world, have their own unique goals, and usually diametrically opposed to economic principles as applied in society.

 

commie bastard!

i'm right because i say so!

i won the argument! who says? i do!

i win!

you are a dumbdumbhead! i am so smart. i win!

 

Thanks for weighing in, Hoops McPube.

WOLVERINES! ;D

 

It took 23 pages, but finally, we have a well-reasoned argument for baseball. Of course, when you say 'it inspires creativity' i think, 'they'll need creativity to beat the team spending $100 million.'
While I like the society vs. sports argument (i dont really have a problem with some aspects of socialism), i wonder what the correlation of republicans-to-baseball is in this argument.

And still, no response to hard-proof that the teams that don't spend CLEARLY make the playoffs are a far greater rate.

 

One thing that cracks me up about all this is the whole``forced mediocrity'' argument concerning the NFL, that the salary cap has made every team equal and nobody has any depth.

One team won three Super Bowls in four years. That same team was gutted by injuries in more than one of those seasons, losing both starting corners in one Super Bowl year and its starting quarterback in another. Hell, one year they had so many injuries they had to resort to playing a wide receiver in the secondary and still won. The Patriots, Colts, Steelers and Eagles have had extended runs among the league's elite. The Eagles lost a Pro Bowl-level quarterback for an extended period in one of their division-title seasons and went something like 5-1 without him. Kansas City lost perhaps the best running back in the game to injury and replaced him with perhaps the best running back in the game. I'm betting the loss of Edgerrin James doesn't kill the Colts.

There are countless examples of this. The fact is, the no-depth argument is a myth. Just like the old days, the good teams have quality depth and the bad teams don't, and sometimes there are great teams that go into the season praying their key guy doesn't go down because they're dead without him.

The ``teams back then were much better than they are now'' is a myth, too. There were Hall of Famers on those teams then, and there are Hall of Famers out there now. Yes, expansion has diluted the talent some, but that's true of any sport. Overall, the quality of play is not much different than the pre-cap era, and while every team starts on a more or less equal footing financially, the NFL still ends up with teams going 13-3 and 12-4 while others go 4-12.