i can say that because cycling is not a sport.
you know, technically.
ask anyone.
it's more of a recreation, if you will.
that some spandex clad monkeys take too seriously.
so, i have a question about real sports.
i know for a fact some of you, dear readers, actually like real sports.
who knows why. but you do.
and some of you, at least act like you like/know something about sports.
so here we go.
while i was in spain, i attended a soccer match, between sevilla f.c. and villa real.
we were lucky enough to have some hardcore locals with us, that we were able answer all our ignorant questions about their league and everything.
some details may be fuzzy, but in a nutshell, here is what i learned:
- in the pro ranks in spain, there are two leagues. an "a" and a "b" if you will.
- at the end of the season, the bottom 3 teams in the "a" league, get demoted to the "b" league.
- at the end of the season, the top 3 teams in the "b" league get to move up to the big show in the "a" league.
- this way teams have a reason not to "give up" on a crappy season.
- also, fans of "b" teams have a lot of motivation to see their team succeed.
- teams are also more evenly matched, making games more exciting for the fans, even in the "b" league.
- "b" league tickets are cheaper, and games tend to be day games, while the "a" league get the primetime games and big bucks.
- i'm sure sponsor dollars drop if you are in the "b's".
now don't get confused, this is still the pro ranks, there is still a minor league.
how do you think this would work in mbl, or nfl in the us?
would the fans accept it?
what if the twins had to play a midway, during the day on a tuesday because they suck?
could they still beat kc?
while the saints (or whatever), played at the big stadium against the sox?
would the excitement level be so much higher when they finally did make the "a" league?
and we could finally have the honor of watching the yankees kick our asses?
teams of course could still send shitty players to the minors, and all that.
they would still be a "pro" team, but they played against crappier teams, that they were more evenly matched with.
more nail-biters, less routs.
would it work?
i want to hear your thoughts.
and secondarily, i want to hear how you'd feel if the protour in cycling was like that.
(because cycling is a rec sport).
what if eusktel got demoted from the protour, and bartoworld go the call up.
what if skil-shimano bumped fdj?
what if it was solely based on your record?
4 comments:
I was going to ask all kinds of questions before being able to answer this post. Then I realized that I was in front of a computer and had access to all the answers myself.
Q: Are there the same number of teams in the first and second divisions? Is it a 50-50 split of all the pro teams?
A: Almost. There are 20 teams in Primera Division, and 22 teams in Segunda Division. This is likely done because even numbers are easier to deal with.
Q: So, do the first division teams play ONLY each other during a season, or is there inter-division play?
A: Looks like they keep to themselves, at least for purposes of official standings. (I have a hard time believing that there aren't inter-division exhibition games.)
So, with those points cleared up, I'll give this some thought as it pertains to the NBA (my sport addiction of choice), and if there's anything to it, you'll hear back from me.
(Cycling is a hobby, not a sport. Bikes are kids' toys. Etc.)
Since it's such a different structure, I have to write my way through my thought process in order to make sense of it.
The NBA, having 30 teams, would have to set up a 14-team "A" Division, and a 16-team "B" Division.
The top fourteen records in the 06-07 season were: Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio (champions), Detroit, Houston, Utah, Cleveland, Chicago, Toronto, Denver, Miami, LAL, Golden State, and New Jersey. These would make up the "A" Division.
"B" would consist of the rest, topped by Washington, Orlando, LAC, and New Orleans.
So for 07-08, "A" would lose LAL, Golden State, and New Jersey, and would gain Washington, Orlando, and LAC.
I looked into it, and the A division and B division have different champions. I think it's solely based on record, not on a playoff format.
This, in effect, would create a situation where the entire B division is playing not for a championship, but for the opportunity to be able to compete for a championship the following year.
In the current state of US sports (especially Basketball), with egos being everything, with the star mattering more than the team, and with salaries being so incredibly asurd, this would never work.
For instance: The Lakers enter division B. Kobe realizes that it's not just unlikely that his team will be champions at the end of the season, it's actually impossible. He demands a trade. The Lakers stand to lose a ton of money in lost ticket sales and sponsorships, because fan interest has moved over to the Clippers, who at least have a chance to compete for a championship.
In the current NBA rules, you can only trade as long as combined salaries match. So the Lakers are screwed. They're stuck paying some combination of players $19.5M, be it Kobe or a bunch of scrubs whose salaries equal Kobe's.
You might argue that if this system had already been instituted, Mr. Bryant and his team would have played harder or better somehow to avoid being bottom-three in their division. You're probably right. But every team has both actual stars and egotastic meatheads who think they belong on a contending team. So the situation remains, no matter which team is moving down.
Another scenario: the KG-to-Boston trade. Boston finished last season second-worst in the entire league. Now, through offseason trades, they are a legit contender (a favorite, even) to win it all. This, while admittedly cheap, is kind of riveting. Under the division system, it would likely never happen, because no matter how many superstars Boston was able to acquire, all they'd be competing for would be the chance to actually compete the following year (which, incidentally, would be a lock, and would fill the "b" division with any number of unwatchable lopsided games.)
It basically takes the rhetoric of "contender teams" v. "rebuilding teams" and makes it official. The typical American sports fans watch sports for two reasons: to see their team win a championship, and to see the best the world has to offer in that sport (the reason Futbol has never taken off in the US, asserts Bill Simmons, is because US sports fans are uninterested in not "being" the best, let alone one of the worst.)
So, I think that while something like this might be good for sports, and has the clear benefits you mentioned, it would take a drastic change in mindset on both the athlete's part and the spectator's part in order to be implemented. And we all know changing people's minds is just fantasy.
So... who wants in on fantasy basketball?
Don't think that you're the first person to think about the idea of a relegation system for American sport, (dis).
But it would never work for a myriad of reasons.
Here are a couple:
1) In relegation systems, teams that are relegated routinely dump their star players for financial reasons. American fans would never accept this.
2) The NFL is the best example of how "exclusive" the ownership circles of American sport are. These billionaires will protect their turf no matter what. There is no way that they'd ever adopt a system in which they couldn't have final say on how gets to join their little club.
3) I'm already bored with this, so I'll stop.
One error to point out, however: In your example, you stated that the Twins would play at Midway and the Saints would play at the Dome if the Saints were the better team. A team's grounds are a team's grounds, no matter how terrible they are. No one gets to switch venues with a neighbor just because they're a better squad.
Finally: relegation for cycling? Doesn't the sport have more, and larger, pressing issues?
Finally: relegation for cycling? Doesn't the sport have more, and larger, pressing issues?
no, not really.
not more than any other pro sports anyway.
Post a Comment