By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 02 July 2017
Edit Thread
GhaudePhaede010 said:
pokoko said:

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.

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--mlb-s-economic-disparity-and-why-its-top-bargains-are-so-valuable-041029009.html


"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. 

 

I didn't read your whole post because I am at work but I read where you said baseball is NOT a good example and then you gave a bogus reason as to why: Because the teams are allowed to spend as much money as they want. But that is the way it should be. Teams can afford to pay what they want. Because then more teams can spend. Owners have the money but can't spend it. That is the real handicap for the teams, the players, and most importantly, us - the fan. And has a lack of salary cap stumped the league into the situation that the NBA is facing? Are we looking at the same two teams every year? Maybe your theory is off a little.

Your last statement just shows me how backward your thinking is. If one team in the east had 5 all stars as their starting lineup and one team in the west equally equipped, I get to see the best bunch of basketball ever played. However, unlike the all star game, the players will play like the games mean something. Highest quality of basketball ever watched. And you want that to not happen because you want harsher salary cap restrictions. Sad.

Now I see your parity argument which is trash. I already said, if the NBA did a one-and-done system like the NFL, there is a solid chance Cleveland does not make it to the finals. Does that give you a better sense of parity? Well, it shouldn't because we all know Cleveland was still the better team. Anything can happen in a one-and-done atmosphere. It means you will feel parity where there really isn't any. Every team has a chance. Even Golden State needed to cheat to beat San Antonio in game 1. If it was a one-and-done situation, maybe San Antonio holds on and we get San Antonio vs Boston or Chicago in the finals. You never know. It would look like parity but only because they do not play best of seven.

I understand now what you want.  A few stacked super-teams while everyone else is mediocre and we see the same teams and players in the finals every single year.  Ugh.  It's actually fine if you want that, as least you admit it, though your arrogance over it is sad and out of place.

Also, your "one-and-done" phrase is pure idiocy.  You have no idea what you're talking about at all, it's like watching a child pretending to do math.  When competition is higher, teams actually have to fight every year to make it to the top.  Your "bu but X might happen and then Y might happen and someone might get injured and they cheated and it just looks like parity if different teams are being competitive but it's really not" excuse-crafting is absolutely laughable.  You have no grasp of this at all.  

Just run along and root for your super-teams and big market franchises who buy the best players (even though you said money has nothing to do with it).