>> |
Anonymous
>>71653 >In any league (NBA, NFL included) you have your 2-4 premier teams, your expansive middle class, then 2-3 teams that suck balls consistently, because the owner is making money regardless of whether team wins games or not.
>If any American sports league WERE to institute a relegation system (or even consider it), it would be more to sweep aside the shitty teams than benefit the big ones, and since those owners are billionaires as well, they'd never go for it.
This is mostly wrong. In baseball it is somewhat true that big market teams like the Yankees and Mets can outspend smaller clubs due to having virtually no cap or revenue sharing, but Boston is not a Top 5 market, nor are the Dodgers and Angels perennial powerhouses out west. In almost all cases, the strata of teams you indicate is always fluctuating from season to season, or at any rate fluctuates at much greater degree than EPL or other regulation-based leagues.
The reason is that regulation, as you put it, "sweeps aside the shitty teams," and replaces them with shittier teams... then the next year, replaces those teams again with the old shitty teams, or other shitty teams, except after a year of losing/not adding good new players due to not being in the upper league.
You'd have more free agents out there for the best teams like the Yankees to snap up, and so all regulation would do for the MLB - and we're ignoring the fact MLB is run on a farm system - is weaken the ass-end of the field and strengthen the top tier. So instead of the Yankees splitting series with the Minnesota Twins, or losing to hot mid-markets in the playoffs, it would be Manchester U style domination. Imagine the Yanks with Johan Santana and Carl Crawford etc. for the past four years or something like that. Probably would have put them over the hump.
|