Comparing baseball to basketball is almost like comparing apples to oranges. One or two dominant players on a decent baseball team is not nearly the same as one or two dominant players on a basketball team because the sports are played differently.
Wouldn’t that kind of extreme revenue sharing introduce a tragedy of the commons?
There would be a strong incentive for individual teams to be extremely unprofitable, as they would still get to share in the revenues of more profitable teams.
[quote=“jabrams007, post:21, topic:341, full:true”]
Comparing baseball to basketball is almost like comparing apples to oranges. One or two dominant players on a decent baseball team is not nearly the same as one or two dominant players on a basketball team because the sports are played differently.
[/quote]Not my fault basketball sucks. Change the game so it isn’t garbage, and you won’t have this problem. Even so, I don’t think wanting a fair-er competition is a valid excuse for allowing wealthy owners to take advantage of their labor force. People being fairly compensated for their labor is perhaps more important than who wins a trophy.
[quote=“lackofcheese, post:22, topic:341, full:true”]
Wouldn’t that kind of extreme revenue sharing introduce a tragedy of the commons?
There would be a strong incentive for individual teams to be extremely unprofitable, as they would still get to share in the revenues of more profitable teams.
[/quote]What’s the problem? Who gets hurt by this? Wealthy owners? Fuck 'em. Such a policy will also encourage getting rid of teams instead of making a bunch of shitty expansion teams. It will also encourage teams to not waste/steal money to constantly build new stadiums. Pretty positive all around if you ask me.
An individual team is still incentivized to do well. You make more money, you get more money. Just have to share it also.
Imagine it this way. Your league has how many teams? Let’s say 20. You sell a ticket for 100. Divide by 20 teams, you just made $5. No matter how rich or poor your team is, you get 1/20th of every dollar you earn and 1/20th of every dollar every other team earns. You want every team to make as much money as they can, including your own.
Most sports leagues outside of America are actual leagues, not the entire sport. There is no way for an NFL team to fail so badly they aren’t in the NFL any more. This is different to soccer leagues around the world where a bad team will drop out of the top league, and will lose soooo much money by not being there any more.
There are lots of issues with salary caps and revenue sharing and all that kind of thing, but the point being made is that players aren’t being paid market rates, and the billionaire owners are taking a big slice. It’s those owners who are very happy with the current situation of the college system being an unpaid talent farm, and aren’t about to change it!
Re: the latest Geeknights episode and soccer rule changes…
Heading the ball is dangerous, but it leads to dramatic goals. So in this case, I think if headers are banned in general play, they should be allowed within the penalty box for shots on goal, or towards goal. Also for dramatic saves.
In the outfield, a long ball or high ball is often controlled or redirected with a header. In these cases uncontested balls should be stopped on the chest or foot. At the very least, if the ball is allowed to bounce first, it would take away a lot of the hard impact.
So the rule could be something like “No heading the ball without it bouncing at least once between its last contact with another player, except inside a penalty box for the purpose of a shot at the goal or to clear a shot at goal.”
That’s not a bad idea. The long twitter thread I had with a fellow game designer on it was pushing in similar directions. How can we keep the interesting aspects of the option while minimizing the harm it causes?
This is as bad as head injuries get in tennis:
So, upon reading about the death of a former UFC fighter after a boxing match and realizing that we are very close to the 10 year anniversary of the Benoit double murder-suicide, I ask all of you, what do you see as the future of contact sports?
I feel like we’ll never fully move away from such things, and even relatively safe sports offer some degree of hazard. I believe that it is good and healthy for us to let our our competitive instincts in a safe, regulated way, but I have heard of so many horror stories in boxing and MMA where referees did not protect the participants that I wonder if they will fade into memory as banned sports.
They’ve been slowly going away for decades, and will continue to do so, at least in the mainstream civilized western culture. For at least the rest of our lifetimes there will always be some barbaric peoples who will keep that sort of thing going.
I foresee some dangerous activities (e.g., biking, skiing, hockey with additional rules changes over time) remaining roughly as they are, with participants well informed of the real risks involved.
I foresee other activities (e.g., American Football with 2017 rules) being radically altered or eliminated altogether, as the dangers are both difficult for the average participant to understand/accept, and difficult for an athlete to avoid (societal and economic pressure to perform at all cost).
The problem is some sports have high rates of extreme consequences for players who are effectively coerced (or at least pressured) into continuing to damage themselves. Concussions in football were covered up, and even now many players choose to “accept” the risks without truly understanding them.
1 Like
The major thing that keeps a sport alive is whether children play it. If the supply of players dry up, or they choose other sports, the sport is done. I think that football is going to have a very hard time with this. People will choose other sports for their children.
1 Like
By the same token, expect pro lacrosse to come about soon enough. I don’t know what the data is for head injuries there but it’s a full contact sport with minimal padding.
[quote=“SkeleRym, post:3, topic:792”]
The problem is some sports have high rates of extreme consequences for players who are effectively coerced (or at least pressured) into continuing to damage themselves. Concussions in football were covered up, and even now many players choose to “accept” the risks without truly understanding them.
[/quote]There’s a saying in Aviation, “Saftey regs are written in blood.” That doesn’t change for sports, but because it’s a much more personal thing for a lot of people, a lot of them don’t want to accept it.
1 Like
Oddly enough, professional wrestling has been relatively pro active about protecting the athletes with regards to head injuries specifically. Both Bryan Danielson(Daniel Bryan) in WWE and Katsuyori Shibata in New Japan have been permanently benched because of head injuries. Danielson is especially interesting because he can pass a number of concussion tests, but there is a newer, special one which he cannot, and that is why he’s done. It is an open question if wrestlers like Triple H and Chris Jericho could pass the same tests, but they’ve been lucky enough to not suffer concussions in this new era of awareness.
There is already a thread for this topic:
I apologize for not looking closer. If the threads needs to be deleted, I completely understand.
Nah, Scott will just combine them.
[quote=“Naoza, post:5, topic:792”]
By the same token, expect pro lacrosse to come about soon enough
[/quote]lol
I don’t think lacross will ever be seen as mainstream entertainment or even a mainstream sport. There is so little interest outside of people who play it in college/high school or follow it while they’re in college/high school.
It also has a lot of the problems soccer does.