MLS and parity...

Discussion in 'MLS: General' started by nyrmetros, Oct 10, 2003.

  1. nyrmetros

    nyrmetros Member

    Feb 7, 2004
    Some people may think that parity is great for MLS. Others disagree. MLS has been pushing parity between the teams over the last few years, but in 1999, new MLS Commissioner Don garber certainly didn't think so.

    http://www.mlsnet.com/special/mlscup/2003/history_1999.html

    On benefits of D.C. winning again- "I think dynasties are great for the sport. It makes good guys and bad guys and allows for a neutral site to be home to such a passionate crowd."
     
  2. Roehl Sybing

    Roehl Sybing Guest

    Dynasties and parity are not mutually exclusive. Xref with Chicago Bulls, Los Angeles Lakers, (yes, the) DC United, New York Yankees, Dallas Cowboys, etc.
     
  3. PFSIKH

    PFSIKH Member

    Nov 1, 1999
    ClarkVegas
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Parity is good for the fans because they have a reasonable expectation that their team will be decent.

    A dynasty is good for the league because it helps sell more tickets, especially to away games, and it gives TV a team they can market.
     
  4. nyrmetros

    nyrmetros Member

    Feb 7, 2004
    Where to draw the balance ehh?
     
  5. PFSIKH

    PFSIKH Member

    Nov 1, 1999
    ClarkVegas
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Make the Revolution the dunasty. :)
     
  6. Catfish

    Catfish Member

    Oct 1, 2002
    Chicago
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Parity is LIFE!!!

    It is great for fans and the MLS. If your team is constantly sucking it up, then people lose interest...FAST. Especially when there are so many other to follow in this country or other footie leagues around the globe.
     
  7. Mr. Knowledge

    Mr. Knowledge New Member

    May 10, 2001
    Baltimore
    there certainly is something to be said for dynasties. the NY Yankees increased the value and awareness of MLB so much. All owners & players benefited in terms of $$$.

    The same can be said in the NBA w the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls. Those dynasties dramatically increased both the national and global awareness of the NBA. All owner & players benefitted in terms of $$$ and thus the fans benefitted too (w/ $ invested back into players/arenas/marketing)

    You can have too much parity if you ask me, and MLS needs to avoid that! Take the NFL for instance. Way too much parity, I can't stand it anymore, due to free agency and the salary cap teams can not retain their players for a reasonable amount of time. They have at the most a 2-3 year window to keep a team together. It will be very unlikely that we ever see an NFL team have success like the Steelers of the 70's, the early Packers, or even the Cowboys and Bills from the early 90's.
     
  8. I think if u look at the relative health OVERALL of other sports leagues, in the long run parity is better than a dynasty. Doesn't mean some teams aren't better than others for periods of time, but not forever.

    Thus why the NFL is so successful compared to MLB, NBA, NHL. Well this might be coz of something called tv, and their structure is much more entity similar than any other league, but i think it's all a factor, including parity.
     
  9. Sundevil9

    Sundevil9 New Member

    Nov 23, 1999
    Reston, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well parity is a good thing. It's nice to know that your team can beat any other team on any given day.

    BUT how the parity is achieved is where the root of the problem is. In MLS, when DC United and the Galaxy were head an shoulders above the rest and some teams were just jokes, the parity level that has been achieved is closer to the jokes than the better teams.

    In other words the good teams have been brought down to the bad teams. It would have been so much nicer if the bad teams were elevated to good teams.
     

Share This Page