GhaudePhaede010 said:
Your post and this post are worthy of condescention. I understand you avoided my baseball argument. It is an illusion of parity. Bostom beat Cleveland one game in the playoffs and Chicago beat Boston twice in a row in Boston before Rondo got hurt. If these were one game series, then there could have been upsets and the, "illusion" is complete. I never said Cleveland didn't do well. I said their super high payroll didn't get them an automatic title. Which seems to lend to an illusion of parity but whatever. Your point about football is still negated by the, "one-and-done" nature. Sure Carolina was favored to get to the finals but was Atlanta or New Orleans? No. And in Carolina's case, they were favored to win that Super Bowl which only leads to the best team not always winning in the NFL. You also avoided that New England is always there. That is parity to you? I am not claiming to be fine with the NBA as presently constructed. I am saying your feeling that salary caps will help is wrong and silly. Baseball has no salary cap and we have seen teams from evverywhere do well and win. What I really wanted was Melo and Paul George to go to Cleveland so we could have the All-Star game as the NBA Finals but... TAKEN SERIOUSLY by the players. I wanted to see all time talent on the floor but salary caps prevent that from being a reality. |
First, the baseball argument is terrible. MLB is a league where small market teams are often building up quality young players only to set them free because they can't afford them. MLB even gives out extra draft picks to small market teams in order to make an attempt at parity. It's an issue that everyone knows about and talks about often but you're pretending it doesn't exist? How does that make any sense? Articles are written constantly about the free-agent disparity in baseball and how the big market teams keep widening the gap.
And now what are you even talking about with being favored to win the Superbowl? That's gibberish. Parity has nothing to do with "being favored to win". It's about having a chance, if you make some good moves, to compete for your division or advance in the playoffs. You're trying to create some false image of parity and it just seems ignorant. All you have are excuses. New England is there because they keep making great moves even though they have had to replace quality players many times. They earned their trips to the Superbowl, they didn't buy them.
That you keep citing baseball as a good example just means you don't know what you're talking about.
Going into Sunday, 18 teams entered with records of .500 or better – and 16 of them started the season with $100 million-plus payrolls. Of the dozen sub-.500 teams, just four carried payrolls over $100 million. The correlation of payroll to winning percentage is almost twice as strong in 2016 as it has been in the other four years of the current basic agreement, and while it's still only moderate in its relationship, alarms are sounding across baseball, particularly in the front offices of the 10 teams with eight-figure payrolls.
"In what other sport is it OK for one team to spend three times as much as another?" one GM said recently.
"All-Star game as the NBA Finals ..." Yeah, I don't even know what you're talking about now. I'm very sorry Melo and Paul George didn't go to Cleveland. That would have fixed all the issues right there. Heh.
