Sports-Parity or Domination

Herodotus · 21 Aug 08,, 17:34

Given that we are in the middle of the Olympics, and in the US at least a pennant race in baseball wherein some teams that don't have a history of winning, are well winning, I just wanted to poll Wabbers opinions on sports, for those who like sports, and even those who don't. Is it better to have in either or both international competitions (Olympics, FIFA, Cricket, etc.) and domestic competitions of your favorite sport (football, American football, hockey, baseball, cricket, rugby, etc.) dominance by one or a few countries/teams (in other words a select few win all the time) or parity (wherein any given country/team no matter its size, finances, or popularity can win)?

**~~dalem~~** · 21 Aug 08,, 19:35

Everyone pays their money and takes their chances. That way everyone does have a chance, it's just that some have more chances than others.

-dale

**gunnut** · 21 Aug 08,, 20:24

I play hockey for fun. The games I enjoy the most are close games. So I would have to say I enjoy parity more than dominance. I don't like to get blown out and I don't like to blow out my opponents.

**Shek** · 18 Feb 09,, 14:51

Originally Posted by Herodotus

Given that we are in the middle of the Olympics, and in the US at least a pennant race in baseball wherein some teams that don't have a history of winning, are well winning, I just wanted to poll Wabbers opinions on sports, for those who like sports, and even those who don't. Is it better to have in either or both international competitions (Olympics, FIFA, Cricket, etc.) and domestic competitions of your favorite sport (football, American football, hockey, baseball, cricket, rugby, etc.) dominance by one or a few countries/teams (in other words a select few win all the time) or parity (wherein any given country/team no matter its size, finances, or popularity can win)?

I'm not concerned about dynasties, but I think the key is that outcomes are not a forgone conclusion, i.e., other teams won't be competitive.

**Mobbme** · 18 Feb 09,, 16:04

It really truly matters on whos playing who.

Leafs vs Senators, we love blood, we want an annihilation and total domination.

Canada vs USA in hockey, we want team Canada to win by 10 goals. If its 10-0 going into 3rd period, we'd still be hanging onto our seats waiting for that next big body check or goal

Other than that, parity is good.

**Exarecr** · 19 Feb 09,, 18:21

Originally Posted by Mobbme

It really truly matters on whos playing who.

Leafs vs Senators, we love blood, we want an annihilation and total domination.

Canada vs USA in hockey, we want team Canada to win by 10 goals. If its 10-0 going into 3rd period, we'd still be hanging onto our seats waiting for that next big body check or goal

Other than that, parity is good.

Yup. As far as the Leafs and Sens are concerned, off with their heads.

) Parity is good if your team is winning......naturally enough.

) Domination breeds predictibility, which creates bordem, Does everybody want to watch the Redsox play the Yankees for the World series every other year?

**Steezy** · 19 Feb 09,, 19:08

I've always found it funny how when it comes to sports, it's the rest of the world that plays by the "free for all capitalism" rules, aka clubs like Manchester United or Real Madrid just getting richer and richer and more powerful, and how in the US, sports is given more of the Socialism/Communism treatment aka "everyone is created equal" - However, it's quite different when it comes to how the governments are compared to the US. If you get what I'm trying to say here.

To answer the question, I'd prefer the "dominance" setup, that way progression can be felt for your team, or the opposite, but it's something to talk about. There's always the ups and the lows, and although it creates more predictable results, I think this setup emphasises the club/team more than the individual player

Herodotus · 19 Feb 09,, 19:54

Originally Posted by Steezy

I've always found it funny how when it comes to sports, it's the rest of the world that plays by the "free for all capitalism" rules, aka clubs like Manchester United or Real Madrid just getting richer and richer and more powerful, and how in the US, sports is given more of the Socialism/Communism treatment aka "everyone is created equal" - However, it's quite different when it comes to how the governments are compared to the US. If you get what I'm trying to say here.

Indeed, in the US there are salary caps for football, basketball, hockey and even baseball, luxury taxes, wealth redistribution through revenue sharing, etc. Whereas in European football (and basketball I believe) there are none of these things and predictably the same teams (with money) win over and over again.

Of course European sports leagues are structured differently with the losing teams in a league being regulated to the next lowest level, and the winning teams moved up, so that keeps the leagues fairly competitive.