|
I would say that absolute parity is a bad thing. Absolute parity being that every team has a 50/50 shot at winning any game, and that every team has an equal shot at winning the championship in any given year. That would suck. But I'd also say that the ebb and flow of watching teams get bad then get good again is an inherently good part of sports fandom. To me, parity in sports is in a larger sense. That maybe no team is further out than 5* years from being Good. Every team is given the opportunity to be competitive given good management. Or, I guess management that doesn't just gently caress up constantly or something. Even if I'm Right, and every sports commissioner agree with me, how you get to that ideal parity is something else. The same draft that might give you that sort of parity in the NBA wouldn't work for the MLB. The way that the rookies drafted affect each sport is just so wildly different. A salary cap, a soft cap, luxury tax, or no cap at all, and how much for each, how much are they evening out the playing field in each sport? I don't fuckin' know, I'm a dumb dumb. But I think it's neat. Given the different ways leagues can "control" parity, do we believe that the leagues are aiming for parity? Or do they want dynasties and poo poo? * - totally just pulled the number 5 years outta my rear end.
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
EvanTH posted:Gonna be a huge nuke timesaver this coming year because the Knicks and the Nets are looking ready to be #29 and #30 An interesting new take on revenue sharing
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2017 02:59
|
|