thats one example.,....and not even a very compelling one....there are a lot more baseball teams than football teams who start the season without a realistic hope of making the playoffs....let alone winning it all. This year, you almost had a 7-9 division winner in football. In baseball, you can confidently say that the Yanks, Braves and Red Sox will ALWAYS compete......in football, you have occasional "dynasties" (i.e. 90's cowboys, 70's steelers, 90's 49ers, Pats of recent) that you can say it about
I know how they ended. My point, which you are apparently too obtuse to follow, is that half the freakin' league had a chance to make the playoffs on September 1, 2003.
Hum, the Yanks have not won the WS since 2000, the Braves since 95, and the Red Sox won for the first time since 1918.
If you want to get into personal insults, leave me out of it. You gave one example from football and one from baseball. That doesn't prove anything except that there are occasional exceptions to the rule. BTW, who were the seven teams besides the Expos that year? Astros, Cubs, Cardinals, Braves, Giants, Marlins, and Phillies. Not exactly similar examples.
But they've been near there every single year. Whereas in the NFL, many teams go from Super Bowl participants to not making the playoffs in a matter of one or two seasons. Look at the Rams, Buccaneers, Panthers, Ravens, Giants, Raiders, and Titans. That's seven of the nine different Super Bowl participants this decade.
lets just drop it. we now know everyone but justice and gwayneco realizes that there is more parity in football than baseball. the fact that they dont is dumbfounding.
Yes, the Braves and Yanks have been very successful. But the notion that no one can complete is not born out by the facts. On September1, 2002, 5 of the 16 NL teams were at worst within 5 games of a Wild Card. In 2001. it was 7 of the 16. To say that the Braves and the Yankees are the only teams that have a chance is the height of stupidity.
Of course, no one has said that. Maybe you should try and heed your own advice and study up on your English skills. NJ Rocket, I knew something would bring us together. Show up at FFB's Golden Tee tournament and I'll buy you a beer.
It is also not something anyone here has said. The lack of parity does not mean "no one can compete," but rather "fewer can compete." I didn't catch where anyone here said, "no one can compete."
I can't tell if he's actually being serious or what... hajf the article seems too absurb to be taken literally and the other half actually seems like he believes what he's writing. 1. Parity — Baseball has it. Football doesn't. Baseball has had five champions the last five years. The New England Patriots have won something like 20 straight Super Bowls. They're called the Yankees. 3. Major League Players Association — Unlike football, baseball has a union that's strong and vibrant and watches out for the best interests of its players. There'll never be a salary cap in baseball. And the best interest of the game? Contraction is a word I've heard a lot about lately. 11. Slogans — Football coaches paste them all over their locker rooms as if players have to be constantly reminded that playing hard and being unselfish is important. Most baseball players get it. By most I assume he is leaving out Sosa... oh and also the A-Rods and Beltrans. 14. Overtime games — You mean a coin flip could decide it? But a coin flip does decide who makes it in as the Wild Card (in a tie). 19. Quarterback school — Is it where you go to finish your degree? Why does the NFL have so many of them? There must be some really dumb quarterbacks. Umm, A...AA...AAA.... the farm system is in place for a reason. ....I'm growing tired of this... he's a hack.. nuff said. Oh and for the record...I love baseball as much as much as football (if not more).
The problem is that you guys are slaves to the conventional wisdom and refuse to subject it to any scrutiny. On September 1, 2000 7 of the 14 AL teams were in contention. Once again, I am defining contention as being no worse than 5 games behind in the Wild Card race. If you expand that to say 6 games within the WC, then 9 of 14 teams were in contention.
If you aren't arguing that you think baseball has more parity than football, then what is your point?
Using your logic, 60% of the teams that missed the playoffs in the AFC were within 3 games of making the playoffs....80% in the NFC....so that would tell you that only 7 teams were out of it, 2 of those being Oak and Tampa, who were in the Super Bowl 2 years ago....anpther being Tenn, who is usually in the playoffs EDIT - the other 4 teams are the Dolphins (who occasionally make the playoffs and hold the single season W-L record), the Bills (who have been in 4 SBs), the Bears (who have won a SB) and the Cards (your only example)
I am arguing the above quote is simply non-sense. There is parity in MLB, though it is less than the NFL. The teams that can't compete in MLB are incompetent. A salary cap would reward their incompetence.
What is nonsense? So you are arguing that the Brewers, Royals, Pirates, Reds, Rangers, Tigers, Orioles, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Rockies, Padres, and Expos all start the season with a realistic shot at making the playoffs?
