NFL

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Small and mid market teams that are competitive aren't anomalies, they win through smart player drafting and development. The Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins, Reds, etc didn't get good by accident. And while you may love and embrace the socialist stance the NFL takes, I much prefer the more traditional capitalist approach the MLB takes. Baseball is in many ways a microcosm of America, and that to me makes it superior. To each their own though, what you think is fair I think is BS because of where we live

Of course you love the way it is now, so when the Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins and Reds can't afford to pay their free agents, "market value", they wind up in pinstripes.

Again, I'm not perpetuating what is, "fair" or, "unfair" in how MLB chooses to handle their economics (funny though, that you keep preaching the NFL = Socialism mantra, but yet MLB has had revenue sharing for well over a decade now ). I'm simply putting forth an opinion as to how MLB is no longer king of the hill, and how it came to be. If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Of course you love the way it is now, so when the Rays, Brewers, Rockies, Marlins and Reds can't afford to pay their free agents, "market value", they wind up in pinstripes.

Again, I'm not perpetuating what is, "fair" or, "unfair" in how MLB chooses to handle their economics (funny though, that you keep preaching the NFL = Socialism mantra, but yet MLB has had revenue sharing for well over a decade now ). I'm simply putting forth an opinion as to how MLB is no longer king of the hill, and how it came to be. If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?

The Giants and Rangers played in the Series this year, both of what I would consider small market teams.

I agree with both of your arguments to a degree. Baseball is more of a capitalist system whereas the NFL is more of a socialist system. Small market teams are at a disadvantage IMHO, but once again, life isn't fair. It would be nice to see the Yanks at the bottom of their division just once though.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

The Giants and Rangers played in the Series this year, both of what I would consider small market teams.

I agree with both of your arguments to a degree. Baseball is more of a capitalist system whereas the NFL is more of a socialist system. Small market teams are at a disadvantage IMHO, but once again, life isn't fair. It would be nice to see the Yanks at the bottom of their division just once though.

No to argue for arguments sake, but the Giants had the 10th highest payroll in baseball last year. The Yankees (1st) & Phillies (4th) were in the LCS.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

If the NFL was ran the same way, could you honestly tell me the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers would've been playing in the Super Bowl this year?

Sure, who says they couldn't. I would have never predicted last years WS. And revenue sharing is a little bit different than a salary cap. There's a luxury tax too in baseball, you forgot to mention that

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Sure, who says they couldn't.

Well for one, it'd be the Los Angeles Packers by now. There's no way that a publicly owned NFL franchise, let alone one in by far the smallest television market, would be able to compete (let alone operate) under the operating economic guidelines of MLB.

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

I would have never predicted last years WS. And revenue sharing is a little bit different than a salary cap. There's a luxury tax too in baseball, you forgot to mention that

I don't know how luxury taxes or a salary cap relate to socialism, but I digress...

[Starscream]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Well for one, it'd be the Los Angeles Packers by now. There's no way that a publicly owned NFL franchise, let alone one in by far the smallest television market, would be able to compete (let alone operate) under the operating economic guidelines of MLB.

I don't know how luxury taxes or a salary cap relate to socialism, but I digress...

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

Exactly. The NFL is a business and it's a business run in a very unusual way here. From websters:

Socialism
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Salary cap relates to socialism, because the NFL mandates how much a team is allowed to spend on payroll. That's like the gov't. coming in and telling a corporation that they could only spend x amount of dollars on payroll each year and employees could only make a certain amount of money each year. If it were a capitalist system, the sky's the limit (like the Yanks).

Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms). Honestly, I can't envision a salary cap in MLB. The MLBPA doesn't want it nor do owners of major markets. Something radical would have to change, and I simply don't see that something radical on the horizon.

Originally Posted by Starscream

As for the LA Packers, I don't think it will be them, but some team is coming to LA and it won't be long.

It'll either be the Chargers or the Jaguars. Write it down.

Originally Posted by VirtualSmitty

Outside of perhaps a few government positions I can't think of any other jobs in this country that limit what one can make. And I can't think of any single business outside of sports that has limits on what it is allowed to spend.

Which doesn't change the fact that they're by far the most popular sport in the United States (and have been so for some time now) and it's a direct result of those economic principles being put into place.

Good discussion by the way guys.

[VirtualSmitty]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Revenue sharing is much more a Socialist idea than a salary cap in which baseball participates in, and has done so for over a decade (even longer in other forms).

Not exactly. How the owners spend the money they receive is up to them, baseball doesn't force them to reinvest it on the team. Teams like the Royals and Pirates collect this and are extremely profitable, despite not putting much effort into theirs teams until lately. It is in no way nearly as socialist an idea as capping what a team can spend. Penalizing a team based on where they play and how big their fan base is just seems wrong.