Here is a link to a blog I posted in the NMI group.
Taking on the "Defense wins Championships" cliche.
http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/157736
It is time. Time to take on a behemoth. The giant, lurking issue that polarizes baseball fans.
Should there be a Salary cap in Major league Baseball?
Lets start at the ground floor. Baseball is the only of the 4 major sports (that is, if hockey still qualifies as major) that does not have a cap. Now that, in itself, is not a good enough reason to change. However, it does raise the issue of "why" those leagues chose to adopt a salary cap. Was their (the owners) goal to hurt their sport? To destory it? Or to improve it?
The owners wanted more popular leagues, since more popular easily equates to more profitable. So why does MLB resist? I know the players are the major roadblock, but why would they not want a more popular league as well? Why do they hold to a system that has been discarded by others?
Our first stop on this delving into the depths of the MLB is with a popular objection to Salary caps: Baseball doesn't need it. Small market teams are doing just fine. Oakland has been able to compete. So has Florida. In fact in 2007 3 of the final 4 teams were in the bottom 8 in payroll. Spending more money does not mean success!
***Disclaimer***
To anyone who wants to hold onto these ideas, you may want to stop reading. It gets pretty ugly, and pretty obvious from this point on.
****End Disclaimer***
Let's look at the last 10 years.
The highest paid team has made the playoffs 90% of the time.
For those of you who track my blog (if anyone), I will may occasionally blog in a few other locations. I just wrote a blog and posted it in the SIFS group blog, for example. The link is here:
http://fannation.com/blogs/post/109116
It answers questions and myths about the NFL salary cap and parity.
It's the end of the 2007 NFL regular season. Although spring is a few months away, now is the time for the major "spring cleaning" in the NFL. Disappointing head coaches and front offices are wiped away by owners promising a "higher standard of excellence," a "commitment to winning," "turning their program around" and other hollow platitudes that are a facade to mask what this time of year is really all about: peddling hope to a fan base.
Well the ram-grinch is here to deliver some bad news (and rummage through your fridge for some leftovers). If your favorite NFL teams is looking for a new coach, you're in trouble. Sure, maybe it was time to move on, maybe it wasn't the right fit, etc. There's lots of reasons to justify why it is a good move to look for a shiny new head coach. Unfortunately, the truth is that the next man hired for the job has the odds heavily stacked against him. Coaching changes are hit and miss. Big time. And there are a heck of a lot more misses than there are hits.
In fact, here is about what you can expect from your new coach:
6.4 wins per season
I had been pondering writing a blog on some of the many myths of quarterbacking. I planned to look into what perceptions people have about the level of play at the position versus that of the past as well as a few other topics. That changed a bit when I read the latest Bill Simmons article (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/071221) where he bemoans the sorry state of quarterbacking play in 2007 compared to the glorious 1980's. Spurred on by his insufficient anectdotal support, the scope of this piece has since exploded. I have now done a fairly comprehensive study on quarterback play since the Super Bowl era. The results are simply amazing. Strap yourselves in, this may blow your hair back a bit.
Let's look at one myth for today:
Myth 1:
© 2008 STATS LLC
Cheyenne Frontier Rodeo Days
