AJ Lopez, 27, was born in San Antonio, Texas. He grew up watching Larry Bird and the Boston Celticsand now follows Tim Duncan and the San Antonio Spurs. He has a Bachelor's of Science Degree in Marketing from the University of Vermont. Lopez played basketball, baseball and tennis growing up and played Division I tennis in college. He still lives in San Antonio and is expecting a child. Sincerity is no guarantee for the truth, for those who had the best of intentions have made some of the greatest blunders in the history of mankind.
Julius Caesar had good intentions when he transformed
Adolf Hitler had the best of intentions when he invaded
Now those are obvious extremes, but it leads to my opening question -- if the best of intentions by world leaders can impact millions of others all across the planet, can it happen in say -- professional sports?
Leagues have been trying for years to spread ?competitive equality? among all markets in order to salvage sinking franchises. But in all the years of trying to level the playing field, I know beyond the realm of reasonable doubt that parity, though meant with the best of intentions, just flat out doesn?t work and will never work.
Take NASCAR. Prior to the 2003 season, officials within the sport decided on implementing nearly identical body designs and templates in order to level the playing field. What resulted were increased difficulties in passing, which led to overaggressive driving.
League officials were quick to blame younger, more aggressive drivers, not design changes. Others thought it was because of the points lead that soon-to-be Winston Cup winner Matt Kenseth had at the time. Kenseth was so far in the lead that others didn?t have the luxury to drive conservatively and thus took more risks on the track.
However, talk to the drivers, and they?ll tell you that the design changes have greatly affected the way the races are run.
The NFL, MLB and the NBA, in their own right, have been pushing parity for years. In the ?70s and ?80s, you had the dynasties, which were great for the fans.
Yet at the same time, owners were known to be participating in ?collusion,? the practice of agreeing to collectively keep player salaries down. Sure, players stuck around with one team, but they weren?t making as much money as they wanted.
This would soon end with free agency, and the dynasties were finished. Players went their separate ways, becoming mercenaries, playing for whatever team paid them the most.
Life was good for a lot of teams -- those with deep pocket books that is -- for they now had access to talent that wasn?t available before, and teams that hadn?t won championships in previous years were suddenly winning them. Thus, parity began with the players.
But now, league heads are part of the mix. Collective bargaining and revenue sharing are now customary. Revenues made by the large-market teams are shared with the smaller market teams in order to help them compete.
Of course, there?s a difference between being able to compete and making money.
Owners of the larger, more successful franchises aren?t keen on giving their money to these smaller market teams, particularly the ones that aren?t using the cash to bring in better talent. Not to mention that monies from revenue sharing and luxury taxes aren?t sufficient to sustain a small-market forever. They must rely on developing young talent and finding ways to generate revenue on their own.
But there?s so much hypocrisy in this parity business.
In NASCAR, making design changes is only the tip of the iceberg. Jeff Gordon and Kenseth may have similar cars, but how equivalent are personnel and other resources between the drivers?
Having the Florida Marlins and the Indiana Pacers finally chasing the ring may seem like a great story, but on the other hand Bud Selig and David Stern are complaining about not having the ratings they would get if the Yankees or Lakers were gunning for the championship.
Why revenue share? You?re only sending money to markets that are smaller. If they become successful, you?re not going to get the advertising dollars.
And don?t think the fans are immune from the whole thing.
With increasing ticket prices and players jumping ship every year, fans don?t want to wait for their teams to rebuild. There?s no time. So I don?t care if you have to sign Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Shaquille O?Neal all at once. Just get it done.
So what?s the solution?
Well, for one, quit giving money to some of these small market and/or low-payroll teams. You could?ve given all the money in the world to the Montreal Expos, but nothing was going to change the fact that
Second, stick to capitalism. If you?re a franchise, be sure to your team is making money. Of course, this isn?t the only solution. Just take the LA Clippers. But if you?re not smart enough to make money, you?re not smart enough to make personnel decisions. A smart businessman can build a successful franchise.
The San Antonio Spurs are a good example. Though considered a small market, they?ve got a pretty large payroll with talented players. That, plus they?ve got their core players under contract for several years.
Over time, if you?re still not drawing enough fans and not making enough money, etc., etc., etc., here?s a news flash, you?re in the wrong town. Get the hell out of Dodge!
Third, find ways to win with what you got. This was the Expos mantra in the ?80s and ?90s. They?d find the right players, develop them, and win a lot of games. The only catch was their players got too good and signed with other teams.
Of course, this goes back to my hockey town theory. Had the franchise been in any other market, they might?ve found ways to keep their young players.
Finally, the leagues need to stay out of it as much as possible. NASCAR?s decision on design changes put drivers in even more jeopardy.
Revenue sharing and luxury taxes have no long term effect. Teams that can afford to pay athletes, even though they shouldn?t.
A salary cap would be ideal for all the major sports, including NASCAR. Teams with the deepest pockets wouldn?t have as much of an advantage as before, although they would still be in the driver?s seat.
However, its all mute really. The Player Association would have nothing to do with a salary cap, so unless the government steps in, we?re stuck with revenue sharing, luxury taxes and inflated salaries.
One way to calm the waters a bit would be for the players to share in the revenue sharing and luxury tax payouts, not just the owners. Another idea would be for a small-market team to repay its revenue sharing monies if they did suddenly become successful; sort of a ?return on investment? opportunity for the Steinbrenners of the world.
If I wanted to end this article on a positive note, I would say that in the end, finding ways to win with what you got is the real talent. Free agency has made dynasties and the Cinderella stories much tougher to find, but not impossible.
Again, the San Antonio Spurs are a prime example right now. They may not be as large a market as say, LA, NY, or Chicago, but should they win a few more championships and suddenly get a following, the attractiveness of a franchise can change.
Unfortunately, it?s really difficult to end on a positive note. As much as we like to blame owners, the problems also lie with the players and the Players Association.
I said this at the start of the article, and I?ll say it again? sincerity is no guarantee for the truth, for those who had the best of intentions have made some of the greatest blunders in the history of mankind.
Some time next summer, owners and the Players Association are going to meet somewhere with the best of intentions in mind.
Someday, are we going to remember what happened to the NBA?