Competitive balance
-
Gip,
It's not a bad idea given the fact that it works in soccer worldwide (England is one example). You don't see teams at the bottom of the standings "mailing it in". I see a problem though.
In Europe, your stadiums aren't nearly as big as the NFL ones. If a team is in a lower division, there is a venue seat requirement where the team has to play in a stadium with a certain capacity to move up. Hartford (UFL) plays in a 40,000 seat stadium. Would they have to expand if they got promoted? The finances are very tricky it seems.
I do like the idea of aligning "lesser' divisions but if you look at baseball, is someone's triple A team going to compete at the MLB level because they had a good year?
-
Here is a link to how the "promotion and relegation" system applies in other parts of the world:
-
How would the draft work? does tier 1 and tier 2 teams draft players? If so that would spread talent to thin and the quality of football wouldnt be as good anyway. Also free agency, nobody would want to sign with a tier 2 team and I dont see how that many new teams would be able to generate enough fan base to be competitive with the salary cap in the NFL. I think it would hurt it more than help it, you would have to work out alot of issues for it to work and in the end your still going to have bad teams
1st Ezekiel Ansah, DE, BYU 3rd Darius Slay, CB, Mississippi State4th Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma5th Earl Wolff, S, N.C. State6th Lucas Reed, TE, New Mexico -
But here is a link to some thoughts by one author, though much of the inspiration for these come apparently from baseball commish Bud Selig:
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/rosenth...proposal-022510
-
Gip,
It's not a bad idea given the fact that it works in soccer worldwide (England is one example). You don't see teams at the bottom of the standings "mailing it in". I see a problem though.
In Europe, your stadiums aren't nearly as big as the NFL ones. If a team is in a lower division, there is a venue seat requirement where the team has to play in a stadium with a certain capacity to move up. Hartford (UFL) plays in a 40,000 seat stadium. Would they have to expand if they got promoted? The finances are very tricky it seems.
I do like the idea of aligning "lesser' divisions but if you look at baseball, is someone's triple A team going to compete at the MLB level because they had a good year?
Gip,
It's not a bad idea given the fact that it works in soccer worldwide (England is one example). You don't see teams at the bottom of the standings "mailing it in". I see a problem though.
In Europe, your stadiums aren't nearly as big as the NFL ones. If a team is in a lower division, there is a venue seat requirement where the team has to play in a stadium with a certain capacity to move up. Hartford (UFL) plays in a 40,000 seat stadium. Would they have to expand if they got promoted? The finances are very tricky it seems.
I do like the idea of aligning "lesser' divisions but if you look at baseball, is someone's triple A team going to compete at the MLB level because they had a good year?
I understand that in Europe, to receive "promotion" there does have to be certain criteria in terms of stadium and finances.
I think in most of the cities I mention, there are big enough stadiums in terms of capacity, though they may not be the luxury palaces that most of the current NFL/MLB owners enjoy....but that doesn't meant they couldn't be developed to be adequate. (that is why I said the start date would be like 5 years out).
And in baseball, I guess the key is that the "new" Tier II teams would not really in fact be the minor league team of one of the current franchises. (Hell, the freeking Indians are a goddam minor league franchise of the fat cat teams now...losing all their best players to guys with more cash). So, you see, promoting a "AAA" or "Tier II team would not be all that different than what is going on now.
-
How would the draft work? does tier 1 and tier 2 teams draft players? If so that would spread talent to thin and the quality of football wouldnt be as good anyway. Also free agency, nobody would want to sign with a tier 2 team and I dont see how that many new teams would be able to generate enough fan base to be competitive with the salary cap in the NFL. I think it would hurt it more than help it, you would have to work out alot of issues for it to work and in the end your still going to have bad teams
nmills said:
How would the draft work? does tier 1 and tier 2 teams draft players? If so that would spread talent to thin and the quality of football wouldnt be as good anyway. Also free agency, nobody would want to sign with a tier 2 team and I dont see how that many new teams would be able to generate enough fan base to be competitive with the salary cap in the NFL. I think it would hurt it more than help it, you would have to work out alot of issues for it to work and in the end your still going to have bad teamsYes, there are things such as what you mention that would have to be worked out.
(but, as noted, they do do this in Europe and elsewhere. We would have to perhaps look there to see how things like player selection and free agency would be sorted out.)
Would the talent be spread a little thinner? Probably (but hey, that would simply mean that both Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn would have starting jobs....even if they are at a Tier II level).
Remember, if they are good enough, they can get their way back up to the Tier I level and stay there.
According to the one linked article, a number of teams have never been relegated....including Randy Lerner's Aston Villa.
-
No thanks. This completely takes away any Cinderella stories. Recently the Tampa Rays went from worst to first in the AL in just one year. if they had been in a Tier II league, their appearance in the World Series would have never happened. Atlanta and Minnesota both did it in the MLB in the early nineties. New England sucked the year before they won their first Superbowl, as did the Rams. Sorry but this is a terrible idea that will only prevent teams from having breakout seasons.
-
No thanks. This completely takes away any Cinderella stories. Recently the Tampa Rays went from worst to first in the AL in just one year. if they had been in a Tier II league, their appearance in the World Series would have never happened. Atlanta and Minnesota both did it in the MLB in the early nineties. New England sucked the year before they won their first Superbowl, as did the Rams. Sorry but this is a terrible idea that will only prevent teams from having breakout seasons.
No thanks. This completely takes away any Cinderella stories. Recently the Tampa Rays went from worst to first in the AL in just one year. if they had been in a Tier II league, their appearance in the World Series would have never happened. Atlanta and Minnesota both did it in the MLB in the early nineties. New England sucked the year before they won their first Superbowl, as did the Rams. Sorry but this is a terrible idea that will only prevent teams from having breakout seasons.
Still, it is my understanding that baseball is considering such a system. They are considering this convoluted system because they don't want to do the two things that are simple to do, and that would really solve the problems in baseball:
1. Institute a salary cap
2. Institute full revenue sharing.
They don't want to do these things because the assholes that run baseball are too cowardly to stand up to essentially the owners of the big market teams, and to the players union who wants the Yankees and Red Sox to pay more money for players than most other teams can afford.
The one link I put on here has one potential solution: Put another one or two teams in NYC.
Figure this out: The NYC area has a population of about 24 million. There are two teams there, so you figure at best those two teams have a fan base of 12 million people each. Then look at say the Cleveland area with its population of about 3 million or Pittsburgh with its population of about 2.5 million.
If you put a third team in NYC that third team could potentially have a fan base of 8 million, which is about 2.5 or 3 times larger than the Indians fan base.
Honestly....if I were the owners of the Pirates or Indians or Royals or some such smaller market team, I would threaten and bellow that I am going to move my team to New York if some better competitive balance isn't instituted. And if MLB said FU to me, I would threaten Anti-trust litigation. Despite the ruling of about 90 years ago that granted MLB a monopoly, this is a new age and day and I suggest that anti-trust exemption could be overturned if brought by one of baseball's own owners.
-
No thanks. This completely takes away any Cinderella stories. Recently the Tampa Rays went from worst to first in the AL in just one year. if they had been in a Tier II league, their appearance in the World Series would have never happened. Atlanta and Minnesota both did it in the MLB in the early nineties. New England sucked the year before they won their first Superbowl, as did the Rams. Sorry but this is a terrible idea that will only prevent teams from having breakout seasons.
Still, it is my understanding that baseball is considering such a system. They are considering this convoluted system because they don't want to do the two things that are simple to do, and that would really solve the problems in baseball:
1. Institute a salary cap
2. Institute full revenue sharing.
They don't want to do these things because the assholes that run baseball are too cowardly to stand up to essentially the owners of the big market teams, and to the players union who wants the Yankees and Red Sox to pay more money for players than most other teams can afford.
The one link I put on here has one potential solution: Put another one or two teams in NYC.
Figure this out: The NYC area has a population of about 24 million. There are two teams there, so you figure at best those two teams have a fan base of 12 million people each. Then look at say the Cleveland area with its population of about 3 million or Pittsburgh with its population of about 2.5 million.
If you put a third team in NYC that third team could potentially have a fan base of 8 million, which is about 2.5 or 3 times larger than the Indians fan base.
Honestly....if I were the owners of the Pirates or Indians or Royals or some such smaller market team, I would threaten and bellow that I am going to move my team to New York if some better competitive balance isn't instituted. And if MLB said FU to me, I would threaten Anti-trust litigation. Despite the ruling of about 90 years ago that granted MLB a monopoly, this is a new age and day and I suggest that anti-trust exemption could be overturned if brought by one of baseball's own owners.
The one link I put on here has one potential solution: Put another one or two teams in NYC.
Figure this out: The NYC area has a population of about 24 million. There are two teams there, so you figure at best those two teams have a fan base of 12 million people each. \
To be fair the split is probably more like 4 million Mets fans, 20 million mouthbreathing neanderthals in pinstripes.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login