|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 7, 2005 1:52:11 GMT -5
I've been a Pats fan for 20 years now, and these past four years have been so, so, so sweet... GO PATS GO!!! Three Super Bowls in four years...... ;D  Thanks to this guy, and a hell of a team.... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 7, 2005 5:17:49 GMT -5
Three Super Bowls in four years...... ;D Thanks to this guy, and a hell of a team.... Thank the competitivive balance created in a league operating under a slary cap and revenue sharing. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 7, 2005 6:57:25 GMT -5
Thank the competitivive balance created in a league operating under a slary cap and revenue sharing. How thankful are the 49ers, who will have cap problems for the next fifteen years? Don't get me wrong -- I'm in favour of a cap, but mismanagement will kill any hopes of competitiveness. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 7, 2005 8:47:48 GMT -5
Thank the competitivive balance created in a league operating under a slary cap and revenue sharing. Just like you to piss all over someone's joy. If the league is so balanced, how does a team win 3 out of 4? I'll wait, you have all the answers, right? |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 7, 2005 9:29:23 GMT -5
Just like you to piss all over someone's joy.  And here I was being told that a hard salary cap would make the NHL more competitively balanced. Hmmm... C'mon now that was just one question. Not so tough. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Feb 7, 2005 9:39:44 GMT -5
That's it. I give up.
Have fun playing your games with whoever is left to play them.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 7, 2005 10:44:13 GMT -5
Again? Sheesh. Lighten up. Have a cigar. If you're going to dish it out... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Feb 7, 2005 20:08:32 GMT -5
That's it. I give up. Have fun playing your games with whoever is left to play them. Patriots won! Enjoy. Incredible accomplishment. Plus they wear bleu, blanc, rouge and are the closest team to Montreal. Three times in four years. I know I enjoy my guys winning when they do. Four more years! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Feb 7, 2005 20:52:00 GMT -5
If the league is so balanced, how does a team win 3 out of 4? I don't think looking just at the winners over 4 years gives you much indication of the competitive balance. You have to ask how many teams played in the superbowl over those 4 years, and how many teams made each playoff round. Competitive balance doesn't mean each team wins exactly once every 30 years (which would be pretty boring), it means every team has a real shot to win - maybe not every team every year, but if a team doesn't have a chance this year then they will soon (assuming they are well-managed). There will always be favourites to win, teams to beat, and underdogs; that's part of what makes sport exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 7, 2005 23:08:01 GMT -5
I don't think looking just at the winners over 4 years gives you much indication of the competitive balance. You have to ask how many teams played in the superbowl over those 4 years, and how many teams made each playoff round. Competitive balance doesn't mean each team wins exactly once every 30 years (which would be pretty boring), it means every team has a real shot to win - maybe not every team every year, but if a team doesn't have a chance this year then they will soon (assuming they are well-managed). There will always be favourites to win, teams to beat, and underdogs; that's part of what makes sport exciting. Well, according to a comparison I did a while back the NHL, without a hard salary cap and revenue sharing, has been a more competitively balanced league than the NFL so far in the 21st century. Nothing much has changed in the NFL. The teams [...]mentioned had their day. The turn of the century dynasties are New England, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Green Bay and Tennessee.
In 2000 13/30 teams (43%) finished under .500
In 2001 16/30 teams (53%) finished under .500
In 2002 13/30 teams (43%) finished under .500
In 2003 16/30 teams (53%) finished under .500
In 2004 15/30 teams (50%) finished under .500
The NHL over the same period:
In 1999-00 8/30 teams (27%) finished under .500
In 2000-01 11/30 teams (37%) finished under .500
In 2001-02 10/30 teams (33%) finished under .500
In 2002-03 14/30 teams (47%) finished under .500
In 2003-04 10/30 teams (33%) finished under .500
*
Superbowl scores (and participants' regular season winning .pcts)
2004 New England (.875) 32, Carolina (.688) 29
2003 Tampa Bay (.750) 48, Oakland (.688) 21
2002 New England (.688) 20, St. Louis (.875) 17
2001 Baltimore 34 (.750), N.Y. Giants (.750) 7
2000 St. Louis (.813) 23, Tennessee (.813) 16
Stanley Cup Finalists' games won (and their regular season winning .pcts)
2003-04 Tampa (.646) 4, Calgary (.573) 3
2002-03 New Jersey (.659) 4, Anaheim (.579) 3
2001-02 Detroit (.707) 4, Carolina (.555) 3
2000-01 Colorado (.720) 4, New Jersey (.677) 3
1999-00 New Jersey (.628) 4, Dallas (.622) 2
The last 4 Stanley Cup Finals have gone the full 7 games, the one before those, 6 games. 8 different teams made it to the Finals in the past 5 seasons (9 different teams in the Superbowl over the same time period).
If that isn't competitive, then what is? And that's without a salary cap.
Exciting hockey most of the time? Not hardly (but the same can said about the generally anti-climatic Superbowl). However, it's not a salary cap that's going to have fans oohing-and-aahing at on ice wizardry.
***
The fewer teams with losing records in a season the more interest in more games there will be in more cities through out the league, irrespective of the sport.
People prefer to go see winning not losing teams (except Maple Leaf fans).
How long it takes to rebuild a team is entirely up to the savvy of both financial and personnel management. You cannot legislate business expertise and shrewd talent appraisal and development.
It doesn't bother me one bit to see a team win repeatedly based on superior resource management. If the other clubs can't usurp their crown, then it's up to them to keep trying until they can. Now that's the spur of competition.
Reward competence, not incompetence. Don't hand out miniature Stanley Cups to every team in the league for "just playing and being darn good sports and keeping your franchise solvent". Again, competence, as well as incompetence, cannot be legislated. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Feb 9, 2005 20:09:41 GMT -5
Well, according to a comparison I did a while back the NHL, without a hard salary cap and revenue sharing, has been a more competitively balanced league than the NFL so far in the 21st century. I can't argue with that, but how many NFL teams are on the brink of folding? I don't follow the NFL so I have no idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 12, 2005 21:45:03 GMT -5
Actually, I used to be a Patriots fan (only when the Packers were eliminated) back in the 70's when they had Jim Plunket, Randy Vataha and "Mini" Mack Heron, who was dubbed Mr. New England back then.
However, like I was saying, I've been a cheesehead since the 60's. One thing that allowed a small-market team like Green Bay to make it in today's NFL was the salary cap. I think it also helped the Patriots, but unlike the Packers, they also had the benefit of excellent support and team chemistry.
More specifically, the Packer coaching staff seemed to make one bad mistake after another. They relied on a quarterback who didn't seem to have the motivation he's had in previous years. Conversely, the Patriots had a staff that could make the necessary, and correct, calls at the right time. They also had a quaterback who was peaking at the right time and a main running back who could be relied upon to consistently hang onto the ball. They didn't have to worry about poor decisions like ill-timed challenges that they had no way of winning.
The Patriots, cap or no, had/have a great team. They aren't finished yet me thinks. Sucks for us cheeseheads.
Cheeres.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Feb 12, 2005 21:51:00 GMT -5
I can't argue with that, but how many NFL teams are on the brink of folding? I don't follow the NFL so I have no idea. At the end of each of the last 20 odd (some of them downright bizarre) seasons I've thought that my team of three decades, the Bengals, should throw in the striped towel. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 13, 2005 0:29:17 GMT -5
Actually, I used to be a Patriots fan (only when the Packers were eliminated) back in the 70's when they had Jim Plunket, Randy Vataha and "Mini" Mack Heron, who was dubbed Mr. New England back then. Ah, Mini Mack, my favourite ex-Blue Bomber. I enjoyed watching him. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 13, 2005 2:30:47 GMT -5
More specifically, the Packer coaching staff seemed to make one bad mistake after another. They relied on a quarterback who didn't seem to have the motivation he's had in previous years. Conversely, the Patriots had a staff that could make the necessary, and correct, calls at the right time. They also had a quaterback who was peaking at the right time and a main running back who could be relied upon to consistently hang onto the ball. They didn't have to worry about poor decisions like ill-timed challenges that they had no way of winning. The equivalent of the goalie in the NFL are the linemen. Forget everything else. The team with the best offensive and defensive lines wins. If Brady doesn't have time to throw, he's just another guy lying on the turf. Brady's brighter and more observant than most QB's, but he still needs some time. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 13, 2005 11:51:40 GMT -5
The equivalent of the goalie in the NFL are the linemen. Forget everything else. The team with the best offensive and defensive lines wins. If Brady doesn't have time to throw, he's just another guy lying on the turf. Brady's brighter and more observant than most QB's, but he still needs some time. True, Mur, but I don't know how many times I cringed every time Aman Green carried the ball. In keeping with your point, he had/has an excellent front line and he's considered the most explosive running back in the league. But, the Packers simply can't rely on him to hang onto the ball. And, if you noticed, the Packer front line was terrible during the first five games of the season. However, even with their outstanding play at the mid-way to end-season, Farve still managed to almost blow several games, having to rely on a last-minute charge down field in order to give his kicker a chance to win the game. And, what miffed me the most about that were the announcers. They acted like he was some sort of hero or something like that, when in fact the Packers had ample opportunities to win the game decisively before that. Argh! The Patriots had excellent defensive and offensive lines, you're right. But, they also had receivers that could run paterns properly and had a QB who, like you said, saw the field very well. Unlike the Packers though, the Patriots also had running backs who could consistently hang onto the ball. Corey Dillon and Kevin Faulk could be relied upon for consistentcy each game. Are the Pats a dynasty? Well, by today's standards or parity, I'd say they are as close to dynasty as you're going to get. Yes, I'd say they are and, like I said earlier, they're not done yet. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 13, 2005 11:53:06 GMT -5
Ah, Mini Mack, my favourite ex-Blue Bomber. I enjoyed watching him. Too bad the cocaine did him in. |
|
