View Single Post
11-08-2012, 01:10 PM
MoreOrr's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,651
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
The problem is you can't divorce this line of reasoning from the central point I'm bringing up. The fact is that when the bottom revenue teams increase their revenue the cap floor goes up -- and thus so does the price of BEING competitive. They can't meet the standard of what it takes to be competitive at least in part because any time they make progress towards that goal, the goalpost moves further away.

The only way any individual low revenue team can get away from this problem is to surpass someone else, and then the focus is on that team and the league as a whole isn't really any better off.
Let me start by saying, excuse me, Dojji, if there's some point you're making that I'm not getting. Now ok, of course there is always going to be a team at the bottom, that's obvious; if one team succeeds in moving up from the bottom then it gets replaced by another, and as you say, up goes the price of being competitive. But if I can take this back now to the OP, my question was/is: If one or two particular teams are consistently always the bottom one or two, over a long stretch of time, then shouldn't it be asked: What economic benefit are those one or two teams doing for the League since they are always the recipients of the greatest amount of Revenue Sharing. If those teams can move up ocassionally and not always be the teams syphoning off from the rest then fine.

As long as there is Revenue Sharing, and I agree with the system that includes it, then there's always going to be these or those teams at the bottom end receiving that revenue. But if it's forever being the same teams, then what economic benefit are those teams doing for the League, I suppose, other than taking that bottom spot where perhaps other teams are happy not to be?

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote