tl; dr

New page!
Thraxle, you woefully mischaracterize the success of NFL teams selling out every game. Many teams suffered from an inability to sell out games last year. Jacksonville, Carolina, Tampa Bay, San Diego, Oakland, Buffalo, St. Louis and Detroit all suffered blackouts from an inability to sell out their games even as the NFL softened the blackout rules.

You cannot compare NFL attendance and MLB attendance really either as the scarcity of NFL games increases the demand but even so many teams are unable to sell out.

Also the Supreme Court ruled in American Needle inc vs NFL that despite anti-trust exemptions they are individual franchises despite acting in concert in many ways.

I continue to fail to understand people that think a baseball teams success is solely based on its ability to spend the most money on free agents. It is an asinine assertion backed by no actual facts.

Oakland competed with a small salary.
Minnesota continues to compete with a small salary until last year when they spent more.
Tampa Bay competes with a small salary for the most part, especially compared with its divisional rivals.
San Diego manages to field a competitive team despite a small salary.
Cincinnati won its division last year despite being at least 3rd if not 4th or 5th in salary in its division.
Milwaukee, passionate fans and small payroll and often a competitive team.
Texas....

I could go on, baseball is a regional sport in that that many of the teams make money on regional not national telecasts and broadcasts agreements like the NFL does. The badly run and poorly followed MLB teams are in the dire straights they are in because they have been mismanaged as franchises and not because they cannot compete financially with the Yankees and Red Sox.

Baseball teams shouldn't be marketed as national brands unless the team can support that business model, like the Yankees and Red Sox can. This doesn't mean they don't field an successful and popular team. Outside of the bottom 2-3 teams in Baseball the marginal difference in ability to compete between the teams is much smaller than the difference between their payrolls.

I love how veta compares sports to healthcare. Not even in the same boat.

All Americans have opportunities to succeed. That rich family at some point in their history made the right moves and made their fortune.....same opportunity as everyone else. Many successful people in today's generation started with next to NOTHING, worked their way through life, and turned out successful.

Why should you punish the rich and successful for making the right decisions in the past?

Sports is not the same. Sports are meant to be played on a level playing field so the overall product is satisfactory. Sam, you can't honestly tell me that the Yankees have made the playoffs for 15 out of 16 years because they're well run. Just like you can't tell me the Royals have missed the playoffs for the past 2 decades because they're poorly managed. If the Royals spent $200 million on players, I bet they could compete for the playoffs year-in, year-out. But they can't. Even if they play their cards right (like the Rays right now), they don't have the earning potential of the Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/Angels/White Sox, etc...

My political views have nothing to do with wanting to see small market teams have a chance to be successful in what's supposed to be a competitive sport. Some teams are at an unfair disadvantage and can't do anything to change that.

In life, people change their stars all the time. It's the ones that want their stars changed FOR them that I don't give a fuck about.

You almost make it too easy Thrax.

"All Americans have opportunities to succeed. That rich family at some point in their history made the right moves and made their fortune.....same opportunity as everyone else."
As a first generation American myself I would quickly cede America has many opportunities open to the vast majority of its population that many other nations do not. At the same time you can't honestly believe that the children of poor people should be punished for decisions their parents made while the children of rich entrepreneurs should be proudly entitled to their wealth. I understand that there is something intrinsic in wealth and power that lends itself to nepotism but I am still optimistic enough to think that such desperate inequality can be checked and balanced.

"Many successful people in today's generation started with next to NOTHING, worked their way through life, and turned out successful."

Yes and those people are very much exceptional, not just for their accomplishments but as compared to the norm. Some people are just so adaptable that they can prosper is near any environment. Since we both recognize that I think it would follow that for the people not as exceptional such conditions would not allow them to reach prosperity or success, which is exactly why free education, free health care, etc would be so helpful and useful for any society. Imagine how many more nobel laureates, scientists, humanitarians, what have you would exist if we had more systems in place to foster such development -- even among the poorest of countrymen.

"Why should you punish the rich and successful for making the right decisions in the past?"

Nobody wants to punish the prosperous and successful, at the same time nobody wants to propagate the unchecked amassing of wealth and power. So please spare me the talking points. I think the best of the best should be given the same opportunities as the richest of the rich, in that way the best candidate for every educational program is selected, and eventually the best candidate for every position. Ultimately the son of the wealthy millionaire probably isn't the best man for whatever job he gets out of college. That being said I understand connections are an integral part of our still very primitive form of socioeconomic hierarchy and unfortunately I don't see that changing for a long time. I do however feel that given the right opportunities the poorer son of a middle class family could surpass this son of a millionaire.

"Sports is not the same. Sports are meant to be played on a level playing field so the overall product is satisfactory."

I don't see how it's not the same thrax. I feel like all individuals should be set at an even playing field. In that way we see who the true competitors are (your bill belichicks and your phil jacksons). Ultimately the best will rise to the top as opposed to those have the most connections and beginning resources.

"My political views have nothing to do with wanting to see small market teams have a chance to be successful in what's supposed to be a competitive sport. Some teams are at an unfair disadvantage and can't do anything to change that."

I actually laughed when I read this. Thraxle, Rob, if you can't see the irony in this in reference to socioeconomic status I can't take anything you say seriously. Financial success is supposed to be a competition then wouldn't it follow you feel the worst off individuals should be afforded some opportunities to compete with the best off individuals? I'm not suggesting we give the worst teams all star players, I'm just saying we should give the worst off in our society some handicaps so that they can ultimately become successful.

"In life, people change their stars all the time. It's the ones that want their stars changed FOR them that I don't give a fuck about."

Anyway I'm sure you understand by now nobody wants to hand out 6 figure jobs to the poor while stealing billions from the rich like some kind of modern day robin hood, but I do think you should realize the hypocrisy in how you apply antagonistic reasoning to socioeconomics and sports.


I don't think you're a bad guy Rob. I actually think if you thought about it a little bit more you'd be like me. You should become a populist too.

Yes I can say the Royals have been bad for 2 decades because of bad management. When they spent money they spent it poorly, they have spent it poorly often. Money does not equal success in baseball, look at the fucking NY Mets for gods sake.

The Yankees have made the playoffs so often because they are well run, yes their financial wealth allows them to make more mistakes but whenever the team has gotten away from smart baseball decisions and just tried to outspend everyone in the FA market they have faltered and fielded some of their weaker teams.

The rich teams revenue sharing helps level the field, and I do think more of that money needs to go towards improving the club and not into the pocket of the "poor" teams owner. Just because you have some... idiotic... I hate making that attack but it fits... dislike of the Yankees being able to spend because of their larger market doesn't mean the game is rigged. Their wealth inspired the Red Sox to get smarter, which inspired the Rays to get smarter which has created the most competitive division in baseball, where the 4th place team, Toronto, could compete for a playoff spot if they were in a different division.

The exclusivity of the MLB playoffs makes them better, having half the league make the playoffs is awful. The fact that an 8-8 Seahawks had a chance to win the Super Bowl is an affront to the idea of excellence being required to win it all. Baseball is far more competitive than people give it credit for, it requires far more sustained excellence to win the World Series than the Super Bowl.

Baseball and Football shouldn't be compared as often as they, they simply aren't the same type of sports or have the same financial reasons for success. Yeah it sucks being a fan of the Royals or Pirates, but that isn't because the Yankees have all the money that is because the billionaire owners have hired incompetent executives and managers to run their team. If you don't think so you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

The Dodgers, Mets and Angels are all facing down years for a variety of reasons despite the economic advantages afforded to those teams from their markets well teams in Minnesota, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay, Texas, Cincinnati, Detroit and Atlanta are all expected to have very competitive seasons despite much less financial wealth.

"I don't think you're a bad guy Rob. I actually think if you thought about it a little bit more you'd be like me. You should become a populist too."

I guess you don't realize how pretentious and condescending this makes you sound.

Sports is not life. Sports are meant to be fair and balanced (FOX News insert!). Life isn't fair, and nor should it be. If you fuck up in life, you should pay the consequences. This glorious model of a world you portray is amazingly optimistic and unacheivable. Many of the people you want to "raise up" are the very people who could care less if they made life any better for themselves.

You're young....you're optimistic....you see the best in ALL people. You think that all people need is a little help....a little shove in the right direction....and everything will be peaches and cream after that. It's refreshing to see someone think like that, but you're view will change to be more like mine over time, not the other way around. It's not that I'm right or wrong, I've just been out in the world a little longer than you and I've seen enough shit in my 12 years of adulthood to have a decent idea of how the world works. You'll get fucked a few times in the coming years by something you didn't see coming and you'll take a second look at how you view things.

I've said it before......socialism is GREAT if everyone was willing to pull their own weight. This is NOT how things are and there's no reason why the 20% of overacheivers should have to shoulder the burden of the 20% of underacheivers. The 60% in the middle do their part. NO, I don't have anything to back up my view with statistics. I'm just basing it off what I've seen from people in general. There will always be people who don't give a fuck and they should not be helped if they don't even want to help themself.

Baseball is fair and balanced, 25 active players per team playing by the same rules. So I guess I am right and you are wrong that baseball needs some salary cap or something, cool glad we got that settled.

1. BJ is a woman.
2. CoMik shouldn't have his accounts analyzed for luck. He would often get bored and suicide out of games for fun. He'd phoenix for what seemed, almost weekly.
3. PGA'ing would affect your "normal" rolling scheme enough, and that's what I think accounts for <45% luck stats. How many people without their membership bonus would require more PGA to get to their normal point level?
4. Many players (BJ included) would lose a significant number of games in the first few days of the month so their %wins to game played would seem normal by the end of the month. Do your calculations account for this?

thank you for arriving late to the scene and offering absolutely nothing to the conversation alan

You're welcome. I didn't actually read the whole thread, so I figured a snarky reply might come from you or Monte.