Buy/Sell: Pro sports are better without parity.
- Thread starter Hanmudog
- Start date
Which pro team(s) are you a die hard fan of? I'm talking grew up watching and going to games your whole life?
The reason I ask... I've been a black & gold bleeding Saints fan for 30 years. Went to my first game when I was six. Been a season ticket holder for years. The big game earlier this year was the most exciting thing I've ever witnessed in person or on TV. I'd say parity is a beautiful thing! (after 40+ years of misery)
I understand where you are coming from though... I liked Boston growing up and it is cool having them matched up this year.</p>
The reason I ask... I've been a black & gold bleeding Saints fan for 30 years. Went to my first game when I was six. Been a season ticket holder for years. The big game earlier this year was the most exciting thing I've ever witnessed in person or on TV. I'd say parity is a beautiful thing! (after 40+ years of misery)
I understand where you are coming from though... I liked Boston growing up and it is cool having them matched up this year.</p>
By your logic, let's just cut down each league to its 4-6 most popular teams. That won't get old.
I don't understand why people think it's better when certain teams get to the championship. To me, it's all about the personnel, matchups, and ****-talking. Would it not still be exciting if it was, say, Sacramento vs. Orlando in the Finals, but each team had the current rosters of the Lakers and Celtics?
What if the Lakers and Celtics made it to the Finals with a style of play and roster that resembled the Spurs and Pistons circa 2005 (boring)?
I love a good matchup and rivalry between franchises but there has to be some substance there.
What if the Lakers and Celtics made it to the Finals with a style of play and roster that resembled the Spurs and Pistons circa 2005 (boring)?
I love a good matchup and rivalry between franchises but there has to be some substance there.
Oxford Godfrey said:
That is your logic not mine. My point was that having traditionally dominant teams in pro sports is a good thing because that is how rivalries and national followings develop. How would you like to watch an Oklahoma City/Carolina Bobcats Final? These teams can still exist and influence who is in the Finals but when there are only two teams left to watch it is better to have two nationally followed teams.
As for the earliers questions in other posts: I am a Laker fan and have been since I was 10 (the year they drafted Magic). And hell no this does not apply to college athletics. That is a different animal.
Lebron vs Durant. That would be a great series. I already tune out of actually paying attention if it is a series like Lakers/Celtics. I prefer to watch different matchups every year if possible. I am not a big fan of any specific team though.
Every team I pull for is in a small market that I can drive to see play. The Spurs were a dynasty and the ratings sucked. I'm selfish, screw the damn ratings. when the nba post season started I was hoping for the bucks/hawks/bobcats vs the thunder. David Stern is a douchbag. It was better when he had showtime and the bad boys instead of mj, kobe or king james. It's a team sport, commish, and he's turned the nba into golf/tennis.
lakers celtics? both can go to hell,I have to have either:</p>
Parity Rocks. Thunderclap made a great point
lakers celtics? both can go to hell,I have to have either:</p>
- 1 teamI hate to pull against (NHL this year it's chicago)
- 1 team I want to win it (NFL this year, my SAINTS)
- 2 teams I'm indifferent to
Parity Rocks. Thunderclap made a great point
Couldn't have said it better myself. I wish Versus had the rest of the playoffs insteadof just tomorrow. NBC sucks like every network broadcast of sports. Move them all to satellite/cable, the picture quality is better, the inflated viewrship #'s are bogus (who will purchase a service product of advertisers if they don't have Satellite or cable?), and the damn weather nazis loveto plaster that damn map or interupt the broadcast after the imminent danger hasbeen over for hours.
Every year you have the same group of teams fighting for the national championship, and every once in awhile a small team will make a 1-2 year run. Sound familiar? It is fact that schools like MSU, Ole Miss, and many other smaller schools across the country in BCS conferences have absolutely no shot of consistently hanging with the Bamas, Floridas, SO cals, or Texas' of the world because our athletic budgets are nothing compared to theirs. We can't pay coaches what they do, and just fo not have the budgets to compete. In a way baseball is very similar. You will have teams like Tampa and Florida who can put together good runs, but at some point they just lose all of their players to the big boys
None of those teams were elitefrom the get-go. They all rose to the top, displacing some "top dog" in the process. And none of them have continually remained at the top.
"Parity" gives worth tothe regular season. Yeah, how I loved watching the Steelers (late 70's) rout the "have nots" every Sunday afternoon. I was riveted to my seat until Pittsburgh went up by 21 in the middle of the second quarter.
One final thought... Everyone hated seeing the Saints have some success, right?
"Parity" gives worth tothe regular season. Yeah, how I loved watching the Steelers (late 70's) rout the "have nots" every Sunday afternoon. I was riveted to my seat until Pittsburgh went up by 21 in the middle of the second quarter.
One final thought... Everyone hated seeing the Saints have some success, right?
But if you are do you really think wecare on an even playing field with the schools I mentioned?
Fans like us MSU fans are die hards that follow their teams through the highs and lows. Most (not all) professional sports fans that do not have a team in their city are somewhat fairweather. Case in point: How many fans on a national leveldo the St. Louis Rams have now? How about the Spurs? The Anaheim Angels?
I am not saying that I want to see the traditional powers win it all every year but pro leagues need the traditional powers to be very prominant. Titles lose their significance when it seems like there are just a bunch of mediocre teams in a league full of parity.
I am not saying that I want to see the traditional powers win it all every year but pro leagues need the traditional powers to be very prominant. Titles lose their significance when it seems like there are just a bunch of mediocre teams in a league full of parity.
<p align="left">No but that is not the point I am getting at.. I am talking about national interest in a pro sports championship. I would love to see the Grizzlies get to the NBA Finals one day (Only if L.A. gets put out) but people out West and in most of the nation would yawn. For the health of a league it is good to have traditional powers rather than 32 evenly matched teams which is the goal of parity.</p>
The teams you are discounting don't have a following because they have not made deep runs in the nba playoffs because they are beaten by the leagues favorite teams. Were the hornets not funt to watch a couple years ago in the playoffs?
The fact that the entire nation would turn away if one of its "popular" franchises wasn't in the Finals is evidence of their shittiness, not of the "Greatness" of LA and Boston.
Say what you want about hockey, but it's consistent despite the teams. The NFL can score just as good a rating with the Cards or Panthers or Seahawks in the Super Bowl.
Say what you want about hockey, but it's consistent despite the teams. The NFL can score just as good a rating with the Cards or Panthers or Seahawks in the Super Bowl.
I get hockey. I actually like it but the worst think hockey ever did was leave ESPN. They should have taken whatever ESPN could give them. Versus usually isn't one of the first channels I turn to.