NFL believes in "socialism".

[Mad Scientist]

One of the TV announcers explained it.

The NFL takes all the TV money, puts it into a big pot, then divides it "equally" among the teams. It's why, in any given year, any NFL team might win the Super Bowl. It's called working as a team and "sharing the wealth".

But there are some MLB teams that will never play in the World Series because in baseball, it's every team (man) for himself. Some of those teams can't fill a stadium. They are merely "cannon fodder" for the "big" teams that have lots of money.

It reminded me of the Republican view of America. Every man for himself and the rich are supposed get more. Because they're rich. Who cares about the team (country). It's every team (man) for himself.

What you missed is that Major League Baseball has instituted a "Luxury Tax" on all teams that spend above a certain amount. So MLB is a lot like government, teams get punished for daring to spend money they earned on players for their teams (Yankees). You could maybe look at it like a "research and development" tax.
Do a little research rdean and find out how many MLB teams are losing money (on MLB welfare) Even the teams that can't compete for a title can still pay their players millions.
The government can't pay us millions, they can only pay us below minimum wage and you know it.

You can't compare Major League Sports to Governments.

 

[uscitizen]

The NFL does have exemptions from monopoly laws...

 

[Tank]

The baseball team with the richest owner, has never been to the world series.

 

[uscitizen]

And many stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the TV announcers explained it.

The NFL takes all the TV money, puts it into a big pot, then divides it "equally" among the teams. It's why, in any given year, any NFL team might win the Super Bowl. It's called working as a team and "sharing the wealth".

But there are some MLB teams that will never play in the World Series because in baseball, it's every team (man) for himself. Some of those teams can't fill a stadium. They are merely "cannon fodder" for the "big" teams that have lots of money.

It reminded me of the Republican view of America. Every man for himself and the rich are supposed get more. Because they're rich. Who cares about the team (country). It's every team (man) for himself.

Did you know some other idiot started a thread about the comedian that explained this, and I pointed out the the NFL is not going to use this system after this year because the owners, including the ones that will loose form this, decided it does not work?

Obviously not.

 

[jillian]

One of the TV announcers explained it.

The NFL takes all the TV money, puts it into a big pot, then divides it "equally" among the teams. It's why, in any given year, any NFL team might win the Super Bowl. It's called working as a team and "sharing the wealth".

But there are some MLB teams that will never play in the World Series because in baseball, it's every team (man) for himself. Some of those teams can't fill a stadium. They are merely "cannon fodder" for the "big" teams that have lots of money.

It reminded me of the Republican view of America. Every man for himself and the rich are supposed get more. Because they're rich. Who cares about the team (country). It's every team (man) for himself.

Did you know some other idiot started a thread about the comedian that explained this, and I pointed out the the NFL is not going to use this system after this year because the owners, including the ones that will loose form this, decided it does not work?

Obviously not.

what doesn't work about it? (other than the fact that even teams in minor markets have a chance at the big prize).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is Detroit. The majority of Americans on welfare and food stamps are white.

But the percentage of each group's total numbers on the programs tells quite a different story, now doesn't it?

Also, let's discuss which groups stay on food stamps and welfare for extended periods of time.

Want to talk statistics? Remember that it's all relative, dipshit.

6% of scientists are Republican.

Around 25% of Republicans think Obama is the "anti-Christ".

90% of the Republican Party is white.

More than 50% of Republicans believe the children's fable of Noah's Ark over the "science" of evolution.

There are all kinds of statistics.

You forgot the big one, Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans.

 

[jillian]

And many stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars.

i think they all were built with tax dollars and given tax breaks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the TV announcers explained it.

The NFL takes all the TV money, puts it into a big pot, then divides it "equally" among the teams. It's why, in any given year, any NFL team might win the Super Bowl. It's called working as a team and "sharing the wealth".

But there are some MLB teams that will never play in the World Series because in baseball, it's every team (man) for himself. Some of those teams can't fill a stadium. They are merely "cannon fodder" for the "big" teams that have lots of money.

It reminded me of the Republican view of America. Every man for himself and the rich are supposed get more. Because they're rich. Who cares about the team (country). It's every team (man) for himself.

Did you know some other idiot started a thread about the comedian that explained this, and I pointed out the the NFL is not going to use this system after this year because the owners, including the ones that will loose form this, decided it does not work?

Obviously not.

what doesn't work about it? (other than the fact that even teams in minor markets have a chance at the big prize).

Really? When was the last time Arizona was in the Superbowl?

Better question, of it works, why are they abandoning it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And many stadiums were built with taxpayer dollars.

i think they all were built with tax dollars and given tax breaks.

Only the new ones.

 

[manifold]

The NFL does have exemptions from monopoly laws...

Which is precisely why they are able to implement their form of micro-socialism successfully.

Thanks for pwning the OP.

 

[Mad Scientist]

One of the TV announcers explained it.

The NFL takes all the TV money, puts it into a big pot, then divides it "equally" among the teams. It's why, in any given year, any NFL team might win the Super Bowl. It's called working as a team and "sharing the wealth".

But there are some MLB teams that will never play in the World Series because in baseball, it's every team (man) for himself. Some of those teams can't fill a stadium. They are merely "cannon fodder" for the "big" teams that have lots of money.

It reminded me of the Republican view of America. Every man for himself and the rich are supposed get more. Because they're rich. Who cares about the team (country). It's every team (man) for himself.

Did you know some other idiot started a thread about the comedian that explained this, and I pointed out the the NFL is not going to use this system after this year because the owners, including the ones that will loose form this, decided it does not work?

Obviously not.

what doesn't work about it? (other than the fact that even teams in minor markets have a chance at the big prize).

The NFL has a salary cap, go over that amount and that team will pay a "fine" to the NFL.

The way some teams get around this is to "front load or "back load" a players contract to pay out most to a player at the beginning or end of it.
The problem is that when teams start getting good (by signing and drafting players) they approach the cap and have to release players (or restructure their contracts) to stay under. That sounds all well and good in fact the league calls that "parity", but all teams aren't "lifted up" to excellence, they're all "brought down" to mediocrity. See what I mean?

So instead of seeing "dynasty" teams of players last for 10 years or so, what you have now is what looks like to me a "Lottery" season where the only teams that compete have picked up star players in the draft or free agency. Have I confused you enough?

It's no longer a matter of picking the right players it's also about gaming the Salary Cap, Draft and Free agency system. Some teams have good owners and general managers that can do it well, other teams not so much. (I'm looking at you Cleveland and Detroit)

In fact, the way those rules are structured, teams can still end up paying a player at least part of his salary even after they've traded him or cut him (fired him) and have it applied to the salary cap for that team!

And naturally the team owners and players union argue over what that cap should be every year.

 

[Sheldon]

Did you know some other idiot started a thread about the comedian that explained this, and I pointed out the the NFL is not going to use this system after this year because the owners, including the ones that will loose form this, decided it does not work?

Obviously not.

what doesn't work about it? (other than the fact that even teams in minor markets have a chance at the big prize).

The NFL has a salary cap, go over that amount and that team will pay a "fine" to the NFL.

The way some teams get around this is to "front load or "back load" a players contract to pay out most to a player at the beginning or end of it.
The problem is that when teams start getting good (by signing and drafting players) they approach the cap and have to release players (or restructure their contracts) to stay under. That sounds all well and good in fact the league calls that "parity", but all teams aren't "lifted up" to excellence, they're all "brought down" to mediocrity. See what I mean?

So instead of seeing "dynasty" teams of players last for 10 years or so, what you have now is what looks like to me a "Lottery" season where the only teams that compete have picked up star players in the draft or free agency. Have I confused you enough?

It's no longer a matter of picking the right players it's also about gaming the Salary Cap, Draft and Free agency system. Some teams have good owners and general managers that can do it well, other teams not so much. (I'm looking at you Cleveland and Detroit)

In fact, the way those rules are structured, teams can still end up paying a player at least part of his salary even after they've traded him or cut him (fired him) and have it applied to the salary cap for that team!

And naturally the team owners and players union argue over what that cap should be every year.

The Browns definitely have... "issues".

But I think Mayhew has done a great job in Detroit the past two years.

Imo the cap, draft and free agency schemes have been doing what they were supposed to do, and doing it well. The league set another record for TV ratings this year, and I think reasonably equal competitiveness across the league has played a big role in that. For one, it can help keep casual fans from checking out halfway through the season--except for those in the greater Charolette area.



The MLS makes the NFL look like a bastion of Austrian economics in comparison though.

 

[rdean]

But the percentage of each group's total numbers on the programs tells quite a different story, now doesn't it?

Also, let's discuss which groups stay on food stamps and welfare for extended periods of time.

Want to talk statistics? Remember that it's all relative, dipshit.

6% of scientists are Republican.

Around 25% of Republicans think Obama is the "anti-Christ".

90% of the Republican Party is white.

More than 50% of Republicans believe the children's fable of Noah's Ark over the "science" of evolution.

There are all kinds of statistics.

You forgot the big one, Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans.

You've said that lie over and over again but you can't prove it. The links you posted said no such thing. Quote it. You can't. You read something and thought it said something else. When challenged, you run.

Me on the other hand:

6% of scientists are Republican - from a PEW research survey.

90% of Republicans - from a Gallup poll.

A quarter of Republicans believe Obama the Anti-Christ - Harris Poll

90% of our troops believe Iraq was retaliation for 9/11 - Zogby International

 

[Quantum Windbag]

6% of scientists are Republican.

Around 25% of Republicans think Obama is the "anti-Christ".

90% of the Republican Party is white.

More than 50% of Republicans believe the children's fable of Noah's Ark over the "science" of evolution.

There are all kinds of statistics.

You forgot the big one, Democrats are more likely to believe Jesus will return by 2050 than Republicans.

You've said that lie over and over again but you can't prove it. The links you posted said no such thing. Quote it. You can't. You read something and thought it said something else. When challenged, you run.

Me on the other hand:

6% of scientists are Republican - from a PEW research survey.

90% of Republicans - from a Gallup poll.

A quarter of Republicans believe Obama the Anti-Christ - Harris Poll

90% of our troops believe Iraq was retaliation for 9/11 - Zogby International

I have proved it more than once, and you ignore it because it does not fit your world view.

 

[Jon]

I still don't get the 6% of scientists argument. One, it's based on a poll of a select group of researchers who belong to a largely liberal organization. Two, it ignores most medical fields, such as practicing physicians, as being "science." Three, it suggests that scientists are more intelligent and/or more important than other professions: business executives, lawyers, engineers, architects, to name a few.

It's really a silly statistic and has little bearing on anything relevant.

 

[Jon]

A quarter of Republicans believe Obama the Anti-Christ - Harris Poll

The same poll also showed that 6% of Democrats do. *gasp*

Again I point out, all your poll statistics are inherently flawed from the start. I can respond however I want to a poll, regardless of whether or not it's true. The statistics about what ethnic groups are on welfare and food stamps are based on cold, hard facts.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I still don't get the 6% of scientists argument. One, it's based on a poll of a select group of researchers who belong to a largely liberal organization. Two, it ignores most medical fields, such as practicing physicians, as being "science." Three, it suggests that scientists are more intelligent and/or more important than other professions: business executives, lawyers, engineers, architects, to name a few.

It's really a silly statistic and has little bearing on anything relevant.

It's just rdean's way of being an arrogant asshole.

 

[rightwinger]

Socialism works for the NFL

Shared revenue and a "any given Sunday" reputation make it the most exciting sport in America

 

[driveby]

Wrong, everyone works in the NFL ......