Author Topic: The Dark Empire (Read 490 times)

doobs · « **on:** April 03, 2005, 10:40:04 PM »

Has started its 2005, 200 million campaign back to the top.
with a thrashing of the Sox. Seven sox pitchers in game one,
who will be left by game three.

GO YANKEES

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2005, 11:41:43 PM »

Have to admit, the Unit looked good today. Damn that man can throw a baseball.

Personally, I dont like either one of the teams, but I do admire talent.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 04, 2005, 02:18:47 AM »

a pox on both houses

Sixpence · « **Reply #3 on:** April 04, 2005, 03:06:20 AM »

Yankees= 200 million

Tampa Bay= 30 million

Red sox are the same, they bought a world series, big deal

You have to admire the owners in the NFL, they put aside their greed to share revenue and keep small market teams in the business. It's nice to give every team a chance to be successful if they run their team right.

Sportsmanship does not exist in baseball, a handful of teams have all the money and feel they have the devine right buy championships. Baseball, at the major league level, sux.

oboe · « **Reply #4 on:** April 04, 2005, 06:10:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
Yankees= 200 million

Tampa Bay= 30 million

Red sox are the same, they bought a world series, big deal

You have to admire the owners in the NFL, they put aside their greed to share revenue and keep small market teams in the business. It's nice to give every team a chance to be successful if they run their team right.

Sportsmanship does not exist in baseball, a handful of teams have all the money and feel they have the devine right buy championships. Baseball, at the major league level, sux.

Seems to me comparing MLB to the NFL the way you have illustrates perfectly one of the differences in philosophy between liberalism and conservatism. The "liberal" approach to inequity (small market team vs large market teams) is to impose rules from above (i.e. "government") in an attempt to make things more equitable, with the idea that the benefit to the organization as a whole offsets the sacrifice made by the wealthier teams, and contributes to their long term health over short term profits. MLB takes a much more free market-oriented "conservative" approach - more like survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. The owners are less concerned with the health of the group as a whole, compared to their own individual well being.
Time will tell which approach works better. Interesting to see what happened to the NHL this year though - I'm not sure where they fit into the example ablove - do they have revenue sharing?

moose · « **Reply #5 on:** April 04, 2005, 04:08:57 PM »

Bah I love it - sox lost to the fluff'n Orioles last year on opening night and all the people came out with the comments then.. and we all know how that turned out

last nights game was decided on one play i think... matsui absolutely robbed millar, and that was a huge momentum swing i think. that ball goes out and maybe you see wells with a little more confidence

sixpence, if you can 'buy' a world series then why haven't the yanks won one since their spending habits increased to the insanity they are now? plus, you're saying its a bad thing that the owners choose to use the revenue they generate on saleries instead of running with it like another famous boston sports franchise which didn't play a game this year

i would be all for a salary cap like the NFL does but the players association will never allow it for obvious reasons. dont fault the sox for doing the best they can with the current system.

YANKEE if you're reading this i'll bet ya a bottle of your favorite alcohol on the outcome of the season series. i meant to post bout it last night before the game but what the hell i'll give you the head start anyway

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 04, 2005, 04:24:55 PM »

Have they added anything but roids to baseball? Like spiked pads and razor sharp cleats etc?

Or is it still the same old mind numbingly boring game?

Maybe they could have snail races at the same time to spice it up.

Viper17 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 04, 2005, 04:38:08 PM »

They are doing it again! THERE RUINING MY SUMMER...err..spring.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 04, 2005, 05:38:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Seems to me comparing MLB to the NFL the way you have illustrates perfectly one of the differences in philosophy between liberalism and conservatism. The "liberal" approach to inequity (small market team vs large market teams) is to impose rules from above (i.e. "government") in an attempt to make things more equitable, with the idea that the benefit to the organization as a whole offsets the sacrifice made by the wealthier teams, and contributes to their long term health over short term profits. MLB takes a much more free market-oriented "conservative" approach - more like survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom. The owners are less concerned with the health of the group as a whole, compared to their own individual well being.
Time will tell which approach works better. Interesting to see what happened to the NHL this year though - I'm not sure where they fit into the example ablove - do they have revenue sharing?

Besides salary cap, revenue sharing is one of the sticking points for the NHL.

I'm not sure I really follow your argument tho. By your reckoning, the teams with the most money to throw at their lineup should win the World Series every year. Doesnt happen. Also, I think you are looking at this from the wrong end. What is the purpose of sports teams? The basic premise? Besides making money for the owners?

ENTERTAINMENT

They are here to entertain US! If salary caps and revenue sharing make it more profitable for the owners, what do I care? If it levels the playing field and equalizes teams so we have more close games, more upsets, more options and more chances to root for the home team with a reasonable expectation they might succeed, WHY WOULD I NOT SUPPORT IT? To me, liberalism and conservatism have absolutely not one thing to do with it. Its a question of how much power does the player's union get vs management, and whether or not what the fan wants gets left out in the cold or made part of the game again. Players see the paycheck. Management sees revenue from ticket sales and concessions vs payroll. You see rules coming down from on high, I see enforcing the rights of the owners and managers to run their business without being told what to do by the union that is supposed to be working for them in the first place. POV I suppose.

oboe · « **Reply #9 on:** April 04, 2005, 06:24:16 PM »

Star -

I was making an observation, not really an argument. It sounds like you disagree with it, but I'm not sure you understood my comparison. I hadn't reached the point of taking sides, I was just observing on the two different methods of running leagues, and how they have parallels to 'liberal' and 'conservative' thinking in politics.

When presented with inequities, I think liberals tend to impose constraints or force sacrifices on some in order to reduce the inequity. This is similiar to the thinking of the NFL regarding the salary cap. Think of it as 'the good of the Many outweighs the needs of the One' philosophy.

When a conservative is presented with inequities, he shrugs his shoulders. He doesn't care for outside interference attempting to redress imbalances. He wants to keep everything he has and not give up a thing, and doesn't expect anyone else to either. This is 'the good of the One outweighs the needs of the many' philosophy. Hence, no salary cap, and teams with payrolls of $200 million compete with teams of $30 million.

Ying/Yang. I just thought it was interesting that these two lines of thinking are illustrated in our major sports.

Which philosophy produces a league with better entertainment? Hard to say - but the NFL salary cap does seem to have produced more parity among the teams in the league (except for the Pats!).

Which philosophy maximizes revenue for the owners? I have no idea.

StarOfAfrica2 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 04, 2005, 06:52:25 PM »

Sorry, I was having almost the same argument with somone else and it carried over to here. I do see your point about imposing rules to equalize the differences, but instead of a liberal vs conservative view, I see it more as Owners banding together for strength to take on the Player's Union. I suppose the end result might appear to resemble your observation, but then resembling something does not make it so. You can only take the analogy so far before it starts to break down.

FiLtH · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2005, 01:02:54 AM »

I love football..I like baseball but hate the long baseball season. I start watching in the playoffs. Last year was alot of fun. To me the ALCS was the World Series. Nothing like David getting up off his knees, as Goliath raises his sword for the kill, and planting a stone right between his eyes!

Do the US team play any Cuban or Japanese teams for anything serious? I bet theres alot of those teams that would wipe that smug look of Jeters face.

Sixpence · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2005, 01:14:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
I see it more as Owners banding together for strength to take on the Player's Union.

That makes matters worse, and leads to lockouts or strikes and lots of ill will and all parties lose. It's owners and players working together to share revenue where everyone is getting a fair piece of the pie. When they do this, everyone makes out and the league becomes strong. When the NFL owners got together with the players, they bargained honestly and fairly, not only with the players, but with each other. You only need to look at how popular the NFL has become and how wealthy.