Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2017 22:26:35 GMT
Which, generally speaking, is better for sports: dominant teams leading to dynasties, or parity?
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jun 5, 2017 22:46:55 GMT
Pete Rozelle made the NFL into the dominant force in American sports with "league think". You are only as strong as your weakest link. Dynasties might be OK in the short run and for championship finals TV ratings, but, in the long run, I think they will hurt a sport. If Golden State wins the next four titles, it will get boring. TV is the big money earner, but smaller club still need gate. And gate dries up when a team is light years away from contention, year after year. Do you think American sports can work on a European Football model, with two or three teams winning, years after year and the rest with no way of winning, short of a once in a lifetime Leicester City miracle?
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on Jun 5, 2017 23:04:14 GMT
It's nice when more teams have a chance of winning but there's nothing more thrilling than a dominant team finally getting taken down, compared to a bunch of barely above average rosters taking turns winning year after year.
|
|