(11-08-2021 08:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-07-2021 03:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-07-2021 03:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-07-2021 12:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-07-2021 11:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  No, but you probably voted for people who say that repeatedly. I would infer from your comments that you voted for Biden/Harris, and Kamala the **** has a video out saying precisely that. In a representative democracy/republic, voting for people who say that is pretty much the same as saying it yourself.


The NFL distributes SOME revenues equally, or nearly so. But if you think the Dallas Cowboys have the same revenue base as, say, the Cincinnati Bengals, then you fail to understand how the NFL works. And if you apply the Kamala the **** standard, then the disparity in Super Bowl rings between the Patriots and the Bengals proves that the playing field is not level. But of course it is, it's just that a level playing field does not preclude those who work harder or smarter from reaping more rewards--which is exactly what the **** says is incorrect.

Both the NFL and NCAA have pretty much the usual suspects come playoff time, year in and year out, proving that whether you try to create that level playing field or not, the cream always rises.

NFL distributes the majority of revenues equally. All national revenue is split equally (tv deals, merchandising, etc). Ticket sales are split 60/40 home vs away. Other local revenues are kept by the teams themselves (concessions, luxury boxes, etc).

So while teams have different revenue bases, the splitting of the largest revenue sources created a fairly even playing field in terms of $$$. Couple that with a salary cap, and you all but remove the ability for a few big market teams to outspend all their competitors - it’s why we don’t have a league like La Liga, where the two big clubs all but dominate competition.

The NFL does not have the same playoff teams year in year out - the Bucs won last year after being in the dumps. The Cowboys haven’t been a major contender for a while (looking good this year, though), and so on.

In the last 11 years, 9 different teams have won the Super Bowl.

My point is that it would be a great benefit to Rice if the NCAA decided to adopt a policy of forcibly redistributing the 16 best remaining players from the previous 4 CFP teams two each to the bottom 8 ranked teams. Kind of matches the progressive goal of equity, does it not?

And yes, the NFL draft is a light version of that. The stated goal of the NFL is to promote the ideal of ‘on any given Sunday’, thus the drive to make their own product somewhat exciting and the races to and through the playoffs not a ‘done deal’. That helps keep interest in *their* product on an internal basis.

In the rush to promote someone that does it, the reasoning of that doesn’t seem to be considered. If the goal for US citizens is the beginning rules of Monopoly (everyone has 3000 Monopoly money at the outset, and everyone should be band limited in the amount of in game dollars they can acquire, to ensure that the guy who has Park Place and Broadway, in addition to the greens, reds, and oranges, has no more than 120% of the guy who hold only the light blues no matter the current game place) then your equivalence of the NFL to real life would be on point.

The NFL teams are in effect partners in an endeavor. They jointly put out a product called NFL football. The Democratic plan is more akin to taking money from NFL teams and redistributing it to self employed lawn care workers...or people who are not employed at all. Or taking money from NBA players and giving it to rodeo clowns.

I said in another post, I don't really think comparing how the NFL operates to how the government operates is really apt.

Yet my sarcastic comment on applying equity principles to the NCAA generated *your* defense of it in terms of the NFL practice of 'parity'.

Quote:But if you're going down this road, some would argue that US citizens are part of the same society and are, in effect, partners in an endeavor.

Most of the people who are the biggest proponents of redistributive efforts re: society would be that 'some' in the 'some would argue'. Communists, socialists, and modern progressives, that is. That is, those who champion the loudest on applying the ideal of equity on as deep basis as possible Or having 'equity' as the overriding concern over 'equality'.