Post by harpospoke on Jul 20, 2018 8:21:53 GMT
But college sports will never be as popular as pro sports. It's based on regional loyalty. That's why the fan base for New Hampshire is so much smaller than the fan base for Duke. If you went to New Hampshire or live in that area of course you'll cheer for them...but why would anyone else be a fan? How is that fair to the fans?
I realize the winning teams get all the fans in college. I brought that one up actually. That's what happens when smaller teams don't have an equal shot at winning.
Well let's use that logic on the players. It "isn't fair" to the players...and yet they line up to be drafted. The majority of them don't bother with a free education in order to try for a job in this alleged "unfair" system. Why would they do that?
Doesn't sound like it's that unfair to me given the behavior of the players. They even have the perfect opportunity to use their college scholarships to train for a different high paying field and avoid this alleged servitude.
They have the exact same opportunities. You can quit Bank of America any time you want and go to another bank. You can quit the NFL any time you want and go into broadcasting or the CFL. There is nothing "hopeless" about it. Demarco Murray just quit this week. Making less money is the choice you make. They pay you more money in every industry on earth to offset you giving up things you want. Doctors make more money because they put in enormous time and money into education and work long hours. They can give all that up any time they want.
As I pointed out, occupations all over the world pay people to inconvenience themselves. Some high paying jobs do that because people actually risk their lives doing the job (oil rigs, coal miners). People are always free to quit those high paying jobs for something that appeals to them more. No one is forcing these players to enter these fields.
The only reason they have those "specific skills" is because they dedicate years to perfecting them....all to chase the "dream" (that's how players term it) of playing for these leagues you claim aren't fair. I don't think anyone ever spent that much time and effort to work for a bank.
It's a choice at every step of the way and players choose to play for various sports leagues. They literally spend years to get there.
But let's flip that argument around. Imagine the rest of the world worked the way pro sports do. To stick with the bank analogy, let's say I always wanted to be the branch manager of my local bank, but I got drafted by bank of America. I shouldn't be allowed to pursue an opportunity with my local bank? I should work at a gas station instead because hey, that's the choice I made by not wanting to work for bank of America. It's ludicrous.
It's only ludicrous if you term it that way. You left out the part where you got a free education of your choice just because you are a promising banker. That would allow you to do much more than work at a gas station if you thought it wasn't fair that you were a "commodity" at your bank branch.
Athletes have much more choice than anyone else because of those "specific skills". They instead choose to work for a sports league that must maintain a competitive balance that allows small market teams to have a shot at winning.
Not a good example to bring up the Celtics. If you were a Kings fan that would a lot harder to do. (which is why the Kings get minuscule ratings compared to the Celtics and Lakers)
The fans have a choice...and so do the players. They can quit any time they want. Either work for the NBA and NFL or don't. Those leagues have to maintain competitive balance....that is literally their #1 goal as an entity.
The fans have a choice...and so do the players. They can quit any time they want. Either work for the NBA and NFL or don't. Those leagues have to maintain competitive balance....that is literally their #1 goal as an entity.
The Kings actually did have a contender in the early 2000s if you remember. They may have a championship from that if not for that questionable 2002 playoff thing with the refs.
The Kings would never have put together a contending team if players went where they wanted. You can forget about the Jazz, Spurs, Timberwolves, OKC, Pacers, Cavs, etc ever winning anything either. You may as well get rid of the teams in those markets. The fans would have no reason to watch their team exist just to be fodder for the "important" teams.
Dynasties have ruled the early years of most sports league, pro or otherwise, and the popularity of those leagues was built on those dynasties. Competitive balance came along with free agency, by not allowing the one competent and/or financially secure team to hold onto the best players indefinitely.
Sure....in places like Pittsburgh and Green Bay in the NFL. Those dynasties never would have happened if the players could go where they wanted. And as a Celtics fan, you'd better be glad players like Bill Russell didn't have a choice to leave. Boston was not a pleasant place to be for black players and that rep would have killed any shot at a Celtics dynasty. And you never would have gotten Bird either...he would have probably gone to the Pacers and spent his career losing there.
Sure if I'm a player I want as much as I can get. Being able to play where I want would sound fantastic. But you aren't making the case why any fan should want that. Of course the owners are against it too, but I don't care about them either. This is why the fans line up with the owners on so many issues. Our desires are often the same. Fans just care about our teams having an equal chance to win even if we live in a small market.
Agreed, and that isn't what I set out to do. I'm looking at it from the player's perspective; from the average person's perspective. Any normal person would try to maximize their opportunities in life, pro athletes are no different.
As I said, of course anyone wants as much as they can get whether or not it is good for the industry they work for.
Your 'fan' perspective treats players as property instead of accepting their rights as laborers. There's no reason a person should be forced to either work for the bank that drafted them or find a new occupation picking up elephant dung at the circus. Same goes for pro athletes. Suggesting they either play for one team or go become broadcasters is crazy.
I don't think it's crazy at all. First because the players would have far more options than you claim if the league was thought of as "unfair". They certainly wouldn't spend years training for it and forgo all other training for other fields in college. So the players' behavior really defeats your argument.
My fan perspective is my fan perspective. Players and owners don't care about the fans at all so asking fans to put their needs aside in favor of the players is not logical. You aren't making the case why fans should put the players desires ahead of their own. If you aren't trying to do that then we have no reason to quibble over it. Fans put themselves first just like the players do.
As an aside, the NBA has only had 11 franchises win championships since 1980. 11 franchises in 38 years. Not much of an argument for competitive balance under the current format.
How about we pretend each team is a separate entity instead of a league? That would be necessary to make your claim work.
The draft is out obviously.
Each team sets their own schedule. I guess they would have to negotiate with other teams. The Lakers would just skip playing teams like the Cavs, Wizards, and Hawks....no one wants to see that. Do they play 82 games or 102? Who knows?
Do the Lakers hire their own refs and make their own rules? Maybe they don't think it should be against the rules to hand check. Goaltending wouldn't be called against the Lakers either in their gym. Perfectly legal.
The Dallas Mavs could change their uniforms as often as they like. Oh....and Mark Cuban can spend as money as he wants. I'll bet he would love to just hire half the Celtics roster.
There are pretty good reasons why the league is a single entity and makes these rules that all teams have to abide by.