Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
All of which is nice and has a lot of truth to it but has little to do with the conversation that you originally quoted from. I hardly "blamed" george for the detoriation of the free world as you imply. But to ignore the negative aspects of his legacy, such as the continuing competitive imbalance in baseball which he played a big hand in, is myopic. My staement that because of competitive balance in the NFL, virtually every team can become a powerful team is still ture and is not true in baseball. Social factors aside would you agree that if you bought the Minnesota Vikings you would have a better chance of winning and establishing a championship contender than if you bought the Minnesota Twins? Or Miami Dolphins vs FL marlins? Or Seattle Seahawks vs. Seattle mariners?
|
I dont disagree with your premise for the most part but you choose some examples that defeat your point. The Twins won the world series in 1991. When was the last time the Vikes won a championship? The Marlins, although being an existence for less than 20 years, have won two titles in that time. How many have the dolphins won in that time?
The Twins have been in the playoffs consistently over the last decade. How about the vikes? As you know, the dolphins have not been very good while the marlins occasionally field a strong team or at least strong enough to win two titles since 1997.
The competitive balance portion of what you say is true for the most part but is that really the big reason why baseball isnt the number 1 sport any longer as you imply in your post?
It is easier to share money in the NFL because there is much more money to share. TV dollars for baseball arent there and the competitive balance isnt going to make much difference.