Skin Blues wrote:You're right, the NFL, UFC, and NASCAR are all immensely popular. So are LOLCATS and rage cartoons. Justin Bieber is the best artist in the world, and Twilight is the best example of modern literature. I don't wish for any of my favourite things to try to keep pace with the most popular things. Why should we care how many people watch the NFL playoffs?
Don't forget the Kardashian's and Snooki.
I agree. I like bieng able to get into a game for 5 bucks.
Skin Blues wrote:You're right, the NFL, UFC, and NASCAR are all immensely popular. So are LOLCATS and rage cartoons. Justin Bieber is the best artist in the world, and Twilight is the best example of modern literature. I don't wish for any of my favourite things to try to keep pace with the most popular things. Why should we care how many people watch the NFL playoffs?
Don't forget the Kardashian's and Snooki.
I agree. I like bieng able to get into a game for 5 bucks.
Being bad in NY does not afford the same luxuries of being bad in San Diego I guess.
Any comparison of the NFL, the most successful sports organization in the United States, to silly pop culture fads, is nonsense. People watch for the excitement, fun, and action. Baseball, by design, is sparse on the most latter, and it really needs to address the first two unless it wants to slowly become hockey.
I guess the main point is that I don't care what the majority finds exciting. You couldn't pay me to watch an NFL broadcast, and if MLB turned into that mess I'd probably stop watching.
I don't think it matters who gets the money. it is a business, but it's a lot more than a business. at the end of the year the World Series winner isn't the team that made the most money, nor are the playoff teams the teams that made the most money. you play as a team to win games on the field. there should be a competitive balance, and having teams only able to spend relatively the same amount of money would sure help. you can say that from year to year there have been newer teams that are playoff caliber teams so it's not ALWAYS the same teams, but you can also say that every year there are teams that are almost a lock to not make the playoffs. what's it like to be a fan of the Kansas City Royals? next year, next year, next year. now sure every once and a while there are teams that have been bad for awhile that get good quick, like the Tampa Rays. that doesn't mean the system doesn't need fixing. a broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the clock.
by buffalobillsrul2002 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:14 am
The NFL's "excitement" (which is predominantly what draws people) has very little to do with salary cap. It has to do with perceived parity, driven mostly by small sample size. The cheapo teams in the NFL still spend less on practice facilities, scouts, etc. than the top tier teams do (at all curious why the Raiders, Bengals, and Bills have struggled this decade?). If baseball went to a 16-game season, it would be a heck of a lot more exciting and competitive too (oh wait, baseball already has that, it's called the playoffs. Unfortunately only 1/4 of the teams are involved...)
buffalobillsrul2002 wrote:The NFL's "excitement" (which is predominantly what draws people) has very little to do with salary cap. It has to do with perceived parity, driven mostly by small sample size. The cheapo teams in the NFL still spend less on practice facilities, scouts, etc. than the top tier teams do (at all curious why the Raiders, Bengals, and Bills have struggled this decade?). If baseball went to a 16-game season, it would be a heck of a lot more exciting and competitive too (oh wait, baseball already has that, it's called the playoffs. Unfortunately only 1/4 of the teams are involved...)
The NFL is COMPLETELY different from MLB. You cannot accurately say that a NFL season is a small sample size, which in turn creates "fake parity". The NFL is a VERY different beast from MLB. The NFL places FAR more emphasis on in-game strategy, preparation, drafting, and scouting. You cannot compare the affect that an NFL coach has on the game versus an MLB skipper. Football is physically demanding too, so it would be tougher to have more games.
The reason why the Raiders, Bengals, and Bills have struggled this decade are all due to various reasons. The Raiders have had crappy draft, after crappy draft, etc. They make dumb moves too (see 2 1st round draft picks for Carson Palmer- a stop gap). They never had any talent aside from their secondary. The Bengals were competitive for a time, then Palmer got hurt and COMPLETELY changed the dynamic of that team. Now, the Bengals are looking better, especially in the tough AFC North. And with that Palmer deal, could become a very good team in 1-2 years. The Bills have the bad luck of being stuck in a division with the Pats and Jets. Plus they don't draft well.
bigh0rt wrote:Any comparison of the NFL, the most successful sports organization in the United States, to silly pop culture fads, is nonsense. People watch for the excitement, fun, and action. Baseball, by design, is sparse on the most latter, and it really needs to address the first two unless it wants to slowly become hockey.
Agree 100%. Except the hockey part. I like hockey. Fun sport to watch live
SpecialFNK wrote:there should be a competitive balance, and having teams only able to spend relatively the same amount of money would sure help.
There is one reason, and one reason only for competitive balance -- so the fans don't get bored and tune out/stop attending games. It has nothing to do with 'fairness' that seems to be argued over and over, as if anybody gives a hoot what's fair. It's about the bottom dollar. It's the driving force behind every single decision the MLB makes. What will make more people show up? What will make more people tune in? What will make more people buy merchandise?
But there's an important thing to understand, here - the regular season and the playoffs are separate things. Completely separate things. People aren't fond of the idea of a league's fifth-best team making the playoffs because they want only the very best teams in the playoffs. They want only the very best teams in the playoffs presumably because, on some level, they want to know which team is the best. But the playoffs don't prove which team is the best. The playoffs don't prove anything. different.
Resurrecting this since there was news on it today - I just read this thread for the first time... and I'm going back to the Jeff Sullivan article posted on Page 5.
I disagree with part of the paragraph I reposted above. As a fan, I want to see the best teams (from the regular season) be rewarded with an opportunity to win the World Series. I'm not looking for the best team to win because I do agree that it's somewhat random and I do agree that the playoffs are completely separate from the regular season. But, again, I want the playoffs to be a reward for the teams that played the best during the regular season marathon.
I liked it exactly as it was - even with the one wild card per league. Sometimes you can have a great season and not win the division - and I like that the wild card provides an opportunity for that team to be rewarded for a great season (even though sometimes it allows iffy teams into the playoffs).
But adding one more is likely adding a team that doesn't deserve to be there in the first place. That's my opinion as a fan.
“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” --Henry David Thoreau
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by wrveres » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:29 pm 
