(07-03-2018, 02:04 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: With NBA free agency happening right now there has been a lot of talk about the lack of competitive balance and how it effects the NBA.
My question is do you think leagues have to be  balanced or is it ok to just have just a few teams that could win a championship every year?

(07-03-2018, 07:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yes, I like that the NFL has a salary cap and revenue sharing.  Sure, some of the same teams seem to be dominate for lengthy periods of time, but it's structured to keep an essentially even playing field.  Why are some teams dominate, in an otherwise evenly devised system?  Because some teams just have a management/coaching strategy that makes a plan, and executes it well.  The ability to select players that fit into what you want to accomplish, while on the same budget that everyone else is, is quite a skill.

(07-03-2018, 08:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Salary cap is great. Soccer has missed that chance forever, and now it's gotten a crazy cash game.

That being said, it still bothers me that the worst team gets the first draft pick.

(07-03-2018, 09:01 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Why would that bother you?  You strike me as a man that would appreciate balance and parity.

(07-03-2018, 09:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: I used to make a thread about my reasons every year. You haven't read those? 

-- so in short, I'm not for parity at all costs. Handing the best pick to the worst team is rewarding failure. See: Browns, Cleveland. Pick over pick is wasted there. Which isn't fair to the selected players, not fair to the teams that beat them, and it obviously keeps them from making some fundamental changes to end the misery.

Also, as maybe an even bigger concern, quite a bunch of games turn meaningless in the second season half. To be precise, it's even worse than that. It makes winning those games a strategical mistake and fans root against their own team in hopes of a better draft pick. This is wrong.

As solution, I'd give the first pick to the best team that didn't make the playoffs, go downwards to the Browns (or whoever really sucked due to bad coaching, bad ownership etc.) and then add the playoff teams at the end of the draft rounds. Let the Browns try something else than waiting for the No.1 selected savior. Let all games be meaningful to the end. And don't reward failure :)

(07-03-2018, 09:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What then?  You end up with a bunch of Chiefs and Bengals teams that make the playoffs regularly and lose one and done..

(07-03-2018, 09:20 PM)hollodero Wrote: I used to make a thread about my reasons every year. You haven't read those? 

-- so in short, I'm not for parity at all costs. Handing the best pick to the worst team is rewarding failure. See: Browns, Cleveland. Pick over pick is wasted there. Which isn't fair to the selected players, not fair to the teams that beat them, and it obviously keeps them from making some fundamental changes to end the misery.

Also, as maybe an even bigger concern, quite a bunch of games turn meaningless in the second season half. To be precise, it's even worse than that. It makes winning those games a strategical mistake and fans root against their own team in hopes of a better draft pick. This is wrong.

As solution, I'd give the first pick to the best team that didn't make the playoffs, go downwards to the Browns (or whoever really sucked due to bad coaching, bad ownership etc.) and then add the playoff teams at the end of the draft rounds. Let the Browns try something else than waiting for the No.1 selected savior. Let all games be meaningful to the end. And don't reward failure :)

(07-04-2018, 12:16 AM)Jakeypoo Wrote: I have a solution to this; have a snake draft like in fantasy sports.