- Thread starter
- #1
anythingispossible
Dangling Member
- 7,111
- 6
- 38
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2011
- Location
- Land of Lindbergh
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
I found this to be a interesting Article.
By Randy Hill
Thanks to the popularity of professional football, NBA owners have a built-in model of alleged financial responsibility to use while arguing their case for a system change.
They point out that seemingly almost any team is able to make a Super Bowl run (hey, even the Arizona Cardinals were within a whisker of the Lombardi Trophy), as proof that paying employees less — on average and contractual duration — is more enjoyable for everyone.
What they conveniently leave out is the raging differences in these American professional sports that go beyond helmets, rules, collisions and number of games played. In a nutshell, most fans of the NFL are rooting for teams. Sure, the league sells tons of individual jerseys and has big stars, but the loyalty of its observers is greatly motivated by a commitment to the team.
The NBA is defined by superstars, a concept that has allowed the culture of ME to attract oaths of marketing-related gratitude directed at star-system architect David Stern. A great deal of fan support is aimed at particular players, rather than affection for a team.
It also should be noted that the NFL system — big signing bonuses for stars, with almost no guaranteed contracts — generates considerable roster turnover. Perhaps that's why so many pro-football insiders have been whining about the decline in overall play the past few seasons
Without guaranteed contracts, the NBA would embrace this lurch toward sawed-off continuity, further diluting the quality of a game that can't afford this decline.
Another reason why the NFL seems to achieve artificial parity is the marvel of scheduling. If your team is in the midst of a lousy season, the NFL will do its best to help next season by watering down the schedule. Successful teams, as you've figured out, have a tougher schedule the following year.
(Of course, the free-for-all of NFL player movement sometimes wrecks this plan by making it financially difficult for good teams to remain good.)
Can you imagine the Los Angeles Lakers being informed they'll have to play the Miami Heat and Boston Celtics four times each while the LA Clippers stick at two games apiece with the Eastern Conference powers?
By Randy Hill
Thanks to the popularity of professional football, NBA owners have a built-in model of alleged financial responsibility to use while arguing their case for a system change.
They point out that seemingly almost any team is able to make a Super Bowl run (hey, even the Arizona Cardinals were within a whisker of the Lombardi Trophy), as proof that paying employees less — on average and contractual duration — is more enjoyable for everyone.
What they conveniently leave out is the raging differences in these American professional sports that go beyond helmets, rules, collisions and number of games played. In a nutshell, most fans of the NFL are rooting for teams. Sure, the league sells tons of individual jerseys and has big stars, but the loyalty of its observers is greatly motivated by a commitment to the team.
The NBA is defined by superstars, a concept that has allowed the culture of ME to attract oaths of marketing-related gratitude directed at star-system architect David Stern. A great deal of fan support is aimed at particular players, rather than affection for a team.
It also should be noted that the NFL system — big signing bonuses for stars, with almost no guaranteed contracts — generates considerable roster turnover. Perhaps that's why so many pro-football insiders have been whining about the decline in overall play the past few seasons
Without guaranteed contracts, the NBA would embrace this lurch toward sawed-off continuity, further diluting the quality of a game that can't afford this decline.
Another reason why the NFL seems to achieve artificial parity is the marvel of scheduling. If your team is in the midst of a lousy season, the NFL will do its best to help next season by watering down the schedule. Successful teams, as you've figured out, have a tougher schedule the following year.
(Of course, the free-for-all of NFL player movement sometimes wrecks this plan by making it financially difficult for good teams to remain good.)
Can you imagine the Los Angeles Lakers being informed they'll have to play the Miami Heat and Boston Celtics four times each while the LA Clippers stick at two games apiece with the Eastern Conference powers?
