If MLB is to have revenue-sharing, then they need to have a salary floor. Teams shouldn't be able to use that revenue sharing in order to make a big profit. The entire justification of revenue sharing is to enable small market teams to compete. And, I couldn't agree with you more Weedy. It is a travesty that cities are subsidizing this huge, money-making business.
As for the number of different teams in the Super Bowl and the World Series, the NFL fields 32 teams to MLB's 30. So, the 14 NFL teams and 13 MLB teams represent just about the same percentage of the full complement. As well, statistically speaking, the fact that the NFL pool includes 50% more playoff teams is huge. Look at it this way: in ten years, 120 NFL teams have made it into the playoffs and 14 have made it to the Super Bowl-- a little less than 12%. In MLB, 13 of 80 teams have made it -- over 16%. This translates into a 40% greater chance for an MLB playoff team to make it into the Series than an NFL playoff team has to make it to the Super Bowl. If you're interested in "parity", there's another meaning to the term: What are the chances that I'll see my team win when I go to the game? Here the NFL is dismal. "On any given Sunday", your underdog team is going to lose. Consider this: In the past 16 seasons, at least 30% of the NFL teams have won or lost more than 65% of their games -- i.e W-L percentages above .650 or below .350. In 10 seasons over 40% were dominantly good or dominantly bad. There were 6 seasons where over 50% of the teams met the standard. In two seasons, over 60% did. During those 16 seasons, 481 teams played seasons in the NFL. 108 of them had super-dismal seasons where they lost more than 65% of their games. During those 16 seasons, an average of almost 7 teams each season lost more than 65% of their games. This is just as true in the NBA, where 453 teams played and 94 lost more than 35% of their games. Of course, the NFL is hampered by the fact that they only play 17 games per season, so the chances to catch up are less. But, hey, they make the rules. In MLB, the comparable numbers are 458 seasons played, 9 sub-.350 seasons. Total. For the whole 16 years. In baseball, a 100-win season is only worth a W-L pct of .617. Kansas City is going to beat the Yankees some nights. The Raptors will never beat the Pistons and the Lions are never going to beat New England. If you want the promise of "on any given day, any team can beat any other team", try baseball. This doesn't mean the NFL ain't fun. But it sure ain't a level playing field.
i believe his point was that picking who will be the top teams in baseball is a lot easier than choosing the top teams in football. how can you disagree with that? the sox, the sox, the yanks, the cards, the braves... its a lock. yes you could choose five nfl teams, get 3-5 of em right....but how many playoff spots are left? 1 vs. 7 i think... all those mlb teams fighting for one spot really, just to have a chance. all those nfl teams fighting for 6-7 spots....isnt that a more realistic chance? part of it is simply 16 games vs. 162, a lot more can go wrong, and cant be corrected in that short season, but guys and gals... u must realize that football gives more teams a chance... a fact that glows like burnin coal... get a cap. forget management, even before that, all things should be even. management has nothing to do with a salary cap being good or bad. hiring good management should be rewarded, but when they have different budgets how can they be compared. give me your shining examples against this, they are against the trend, the average. get a cap before its the yankees vs. the National League and Bud calls it a tie.
