Sports: Money Doesn't Guarantee Success in NBA, NFL

As soon as I published Money Doesn't Guarantee Success, But... about the direct correlation between spending money and success in Major League Baseball, I knew there would be a follow-up.

Well, here it is.

Such an article is incomplete without doing a similar study in the other two major sports leagues, the NBA and NFL. We've already proven that there is more parity in those leagues, both financially and results based.

That said, how much does the amount of money a franchise spends in those leagues determine success?

Whereas I used data from both the past five and 10 years for baseball, I'll focus only on the five year window for the NFL and NBA. The reason for this is that I used USAToday for the baseball data and want to do the same for the other two leagues. They do not provide information back far enough for a 10 year study.

Major League Baseball
You've already seen it, but let's show the chart again...

Team	5 yr %	$ Avg	W/L Rank	$ Rank	Diff
NY Yankees	.590	$200,627,941	1	1	0
LA Angels	.586	$108,674,798	2	4	2
Boston	.577	$128,353,439	3	2	-1
Philadelphia	.552	$96,899,494	4	10	6
St. Louis	.541	$89,702,917	5	13	8
Minnesota	.533	$62,650,708	6	22	16
Chicago Sox	.529	$100,771,666	7	7	0
NY Mets	.527	$120,957,962	8	3	-5
LA Dodgers	.519	$101,788,768	9	6	-3
Cleveland	.510	$63,951,300	10	20	10
Detroit	.510	$99,931,115	10	8	-2
Chicago Cubs	.507	$106,856,519	12	5	-7
Atlanta	.507	$92,599,372	13	11	-2
Toronto	.507	$75,581,900	13	15	2
Milwaukee	.505	$65,921,933	15	18	3
Oakland	.503	$61,462,581	16	24	8
Houston	.499	$89,803,266	17	12	-5
Florida	.498	$32,911,967	18	30	12
Texas	.494	$65,657,492	19	19	0
Colorado	.492	$57,533,700	20	25	5
San Diego	.490	$61,741,871	21	23	2
Arizona	.488	$62,760,063	22	21	-1
San Francisco	.472	$85,937,185	23	14	-9
Seattle	.470	$99,749,130	24	9	-15
Cincinnati	.465	$67,876,655	25	17	-8
Tampa Bay	.463	$39,270,833	26	29	3
Baltimore	.426	$74,870,527	27	16	-11
Washington	.424	$52,872,200	28	27	-1
Pittsburgh	.409	$44,154,273	29	28	-1
Kansas City	.404	$56,011,267	30	26	-4

The measure for a success vs. money spent correlation here is having a small number of teams fall outside of the +/- nine range when comparing win/loss rank and payroll rank.

For baseball, there were five teams that fell outside of this range: Three teams found ways to succeed without spending large sums of money and two spent a lot of money without success.

Every other team fell within a reasonably expected range of success based on the amount of money they shelled out on payroll.

National Basketball Association
While there is a soft cap in the NBA, that certainly doesn't prevent some teams from spending more than others. In fact, these teams can still spend large sums of money, but face the dollar for dollar tax after a certain threshold.

Following is the chart for the NBA:

Team	5 yr %	$ Avg	W/L Rank	$ Rank	Diff
San Antonio	.707	$55,742,851	1	27	26
Dallas	.698	$80,426,300	2	2	0
Phoenix	.678	$65,738,866	3	7	4
Detroit	.656	$65,273,290	4	8	4
Cleveland	.617	$67,605,767	5	3	-2
Houston	.598	$63,833,037	6	11	5
LA Lakers	.593	$66,723,331	7	5	-2
Denver	.590	$62,561,401	8	12	4
Boston	.561	$62,442,082	9	13	4
Orlando	.544	$60,110,569	10	18	8
Utah	.537	$56,509,465	11	24	13
Miami	.520	$64,423,567	12	10	-2
Chicago	.515	$53,725,606	13	28	15
Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets	.488	$56,124,018	14	25	11
New Jersey	.488	$58,791,823	14	20	6
Philadelphia	.480	$64,611,477	16	9	-7
Indiana	.468	$66,184,370	17	6	-11
Washington	.463	$58,517,432	18	21	3
Golden State	.456	$60,801,041	19	16	-3
Sacramento	.444	$67,338,662	20	4	-16
Toronto	.441	$58,872,956	21	19	-2
Portland	.427	$57,782,460	22	23	1
LA Clippers	.405	$56,074,913	23	26	3
Vancouver/Memphis	.395	$60,208,536	24	17	-7
Seattle/Oklahoma City	.393	$60,987,577	25	15	-10
Milwaukee	.385	$58,008,366	26	22	-4
Minnesota	.378	$61,154,474	27	14	-13
Atlanta	.373	$50,360,051	28	29	1
Charlotte Bobcats	.351	$43,020,428	29	30	1
New York	.351	$91,709,481	29	1	-28

So, there were five teams that fell out of a reasonable win/loss vs. payroll disparity in baseball and nine in the NBA. Without looking at any more data, we can already make the statement that money is less likely to buy you success in the NBA than in Major League Baseball.

But let's not stop only with the nine vs. five numbers. Let's look at the "quality" of those nine vs. five.

In baseball, no team exceeded their expected range by more than 16. An example would be having the 28th highest payroll and finishing with the 12th best record (or vice versa).

In the NBA, three teams exceeded their expected range by more than 16. In fact, one of the best and one of the worst teams can be used as prime examples of how money does not directly correlate to success in the NBA.

The New York Knicks are a famous example of a team that spends exorbitant amounts of money without success. They have the highest payroll during the past five years, but with only the 28th best record to show for it.

On the other hand, the San Antonio Spurs are an example of winning without spending large sums of money. They have the league's best record during the past five years, but only the 27th highest payroll.

Also important to point out that it is the Spurs' choice to spend less, giving them payroll flexibility. They are not at a disadvantage as a result of spending less. They still have stars (Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, and Tony Parker) on their team. They simply spend more intelligently than the Knicks.

National Football League
If you thought the NBA was a nice example of money not guaranteeing success, you're in for a treat with the NFL. There is no correlation between payroll and success in the NFL. None.

Let's take a look:

Team	5 yr %	$ Avg	W/L Rank	$ Rank	Diff
Indianapolis	.788	$99,396,969	1	6	5
New England	.788	$97,443,207	1	13	12
Pittsburgh	.700	$98,265,425	3	9	6
San Diego	.675	$93,807,798	4	22	18
Denver	.588	$92,023,896	5	28	23
NY Giants	.588	$92,769,657	5	27	22
Philadelphia	.581	$98,581,955	7	8	1
Dallas	.575	$103,003,482	8	3	-5
Carolina	.563	$98,125,795	9	11	2
Chicago	.563	$96,428,079	9	15	6
Jacksonville	.563	$93,845,641	9	21	12
Seattle	.563	$100,922,646	9	4	-5
Baltimore	.550	$97,697,184	13	12	-1
Atlanta	.513	$93,361,478	14	23	9
Green Bay	.513	$87,071,459	14	32	18
Minnesota	.513	$105,671,155	14	2	-12
Tennessee	.500	$90,651,175	17	29	12
Cincinnati	.481	$92,982,068	18	25	7
Tampa Bay	.475	$87,394,887	19	31	12
Washington	.475	$105,956,632	19	1	-18
NY Jets	.463	$95,248,006	21	19	-2
New Orleans	.450	$100,464,296	22	5	-17
Buffalo	.438	$92,854,574	23	26	3
Arizona	.413	$96,398,273	24	16	-8
Kansas City	.400	$88,372,411	25	30	5
Houston	.388	$98,898,660	26	7	-19
Miami	.388	$93,952,520	26	20	-6
Cleveland	.350	$96,948,225	28	14	-14
St. Louis	.338	$95,400,482	29	18	-11
San Francisco	.313	$93,327,309	30	24	-6
Detroit	.263	$95,737,560	31	17	-14
Oakland	.250	$98,130,065	32	10	-22

So let's recap. In Major League Baseball, there are five teams during the past five seasons who's win/loss rank vs. payroll rank is +/-10 or greater. In the NBA, there were nine such teams.

In the NFL, there are 16 teams that fit this description. Half. Eight that exceed MLB's largest range buster of 16.

Arguably the most successful team during the past five years (or decade, for that matter), the New England Patriots have the 13th highest payroll covering the past five seasons.

The Washington Redskins spend the most. Yes, those Redskins.

The team that spends the least is the Green Bay Packers, who have the 14th best record.

In Conclusion
These results shouldn't be particularly surprising, but it's good to get confirmation. In baseball, money often wins championships. At the very least, having money provides a significant advantage, and not spending is a disadvantage.

The NBA and NFL have salary cap systems in place for the purpose of preventing such a situation. In fact, one might even say that in a hard cap scenario that spending too much money can be a major hindrance.

In these two leagues, it is the teams that best manage the cap -- not spend the most money -- that are typically most successful. It's the strategy of having the best players, the most productive players, for as long as possible while staying within their financial restrictions.

Imagine that? Strategy, sound decisions, and fiscal restraint result in success. In baseball, those who spend the most will most often win.

There is something inherently wrong with this.

Sports: Money Doesn't Guarantee Success, BUT...

In my never ending quest to spotlight the gross economic inequities in Major League Baseball, today I'm going to show the direct relationship between money and success.

Before now, I've focused instead on the lack of parity in baseball compared to the NBA and NFL. Additionally, we snapped our fingers and observed what baseball would look like if it mimicked the NBA's financial disparities.

Still, we've yet to show the direct correlation between money and success (as obvious as it may otherwise seem). So let's do that.

We know that money does not guarantee success. And not spending huge sums of money will not guarantee failure. Particularly covering a one or two year time frame.

However, over a five or 10 year period, I'm confident that we can reasonably expect that the vast majority of teams that succeed have spent money and the vast majority of teams that fail will spend the least.

Below is a chart of all teams during the past 10 years, their record, win/loss rank, average payroll, and payroll rank.

Team	10 yr %	$ Avg	W/L Rank	$ Rank	Diff
NY Yankees	.598	$167,123,746	1	1	0
Boston	.568	$116,826,442	2	2	0
St. Louis	.564	$83,161,682	3	9	6
LA Angels	.556	$88,366,382	4	7	3
Atlanta	.551	$92,756,206	5	5	0
Oakland	.550	$52,293,616	6	24	18
LA Dodgers	.532	$100,205,132	7	4	-3
Minnesota	.532	$50,235,304	7	25	18
San Francisco	.529	$78,967,826	9	11	2
Chicago Sox	.529	$77,392,133	10	12	2
Philadelphia	.525	$79,506,314	11	10	-1
Seattle	.517	$88,143,915	12	8	-4
Houston	.514	$77,137,108	13	13	0
Cleveland	.504	$65,073,842	14	19	5
NY Mets	.504	$108,669,499	14	3	-11
Florida	.502	$35,286,529	16	30	14
Chicago Cubs	.499	$90,704,693	17	6	-11
Toronto	.497	$67,931,916	18	18	0
Arizona	.497	$73,153,640	19	16	-3
Texas	.479	$75,197,417	20	15	-5
Colorado	.474	$60,999,990	21	20	-1
San Diego	.474	$54,458,302	22	22	0
Cincinnati	.464	$58,340,608	23	21	-2
Milwaukee	.458	$52,893,517	24	23	-1
Detroit	.450	$76,179,991	25	14	-11
Washington	.439	$46,455,467	26	27	1
Baltimore	.432	$71,776,769	27	17	-10
Tampa Bay	.429	$40,130,874	28	29	1
Pittsburgh	.421	$43,445,782	29	28	-1
Kansas City	.415	$47,399,533	30	26	-4

Let's talk about what this means. As I've said before, spending money offers no guarantees. Some teams will spend money and fail because of poor decisions. Other teams will not spend money and find other ways to succeed.

In my opinion (though this is far from scientific), you can reasonably expect your spending rank and winning percentage rank to be close to one another, falling within about 10 spots of one another.

As you can see by the chart above, seven teams were able to fall outside of that expected range. Three teams (Oakland, Minnesota and Florida) have been able to succeed far above their expected rate despite a lack of significant spending.

Three other teams (New York Mets, Chicago Cubs, Detroit Tigers and Baltimore Orioles) prove that spending money must be complemented by sound decisions. These teams fell far below their expected rate of success.

Just as important as these results is that the two teams that spent the most money during the past 10 years (New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox) are also the two teams with the best winning percentages during that time.

Coincidence? I think not.

The Yankees also had the highest payroll in each of those 10 years. In fact, they've had the highest payroll in all but three seasons dating back to 1993, and in each of those three seasons they finished in the top three.

While we've previously talked about the appearance of more parity in baseball during the past five seasons, that isn't true in this study. Here are the stats for the past five years:

Team	5 yr %	$ Avg	W/L Rank	$ Rank	Diff
NY Yankees	.590	$200,627,941	1	1	0
LA Angels	.586	$108,674,798	2	4	2
Boston	.577	$128,353,439	3	2	-1
Philadelphia	.552	$96,899,494	4	10	6
St. Louis	.541	$89,702,917	5	13	8
Minnesota	.533	$62,650,708	6	22	16
Chicago Sox	.529	$100,771,666	7	7	0
NY Mets	.527	$120,957,962	8	3	-5
LA Dodgers	.519	$101,788,768	9	6	-3
Cleveland	.510	$63,951,300	10	20	10
Detroit	.510	$99,931,115	10	8	-2
Chicago Cubs	.507	$106,856,519	12	5	-7
Atlanta	.507	$92,599,372	13	11	-2
Toronto	.507	$75,581,900	13	15	2
Milwaukee	.505	$65,921,933	15	18	3
Oakland	.503	$61,462,581	16	24	8
Houston	.499	$89,803,266	17	12	-5
Florida	.498	$32,911,967	18	30	12
Texas	.494	$65,657,492	19	19	0
Colorado	.492	$57,533,700	20	25	5
San Diego	.490	$61,741,871	21	23	2
Arizona	.488	$62,760,063	22	21	-1
San Francisco	.472	$85,937,185	23	14	-9
Seattle	.470	$99,749,130	24	9	-15
Cincinnati	.465	$67,876,655	25	17	-8
Tampa Bay	.463	$39,270,833	26	29	3
Baltimore	.426	$74,870,527	27	16	-11
Washington	.424	$52,872,200	28	27	-1
Pittsburgh	.409	$44,154,273	29	28	-1
Kansas City	.404	$56,011,267	30	26	-4

This time, there are only five teams that fall outside of their expected window of success. The Twins, Indians and Marlins found ways to succeed beyond their payroll while the Mariners and Orioles have failed despite shelling out large dollars.

Also, three of the top four in spending (the Mets excluded) have had the three best winning percentages during the past five years.

Are teams that spend money guaranteed to succeed? No, but the likelihood is much greater that they will.

Are teams that don't spend large sums of money guaranteed to fail? No, but they are not able to build teams the way that big spenders can and must get creative to exceed expectations.

In either case, the outliers are rare exceptions. During the past 10 years, 23 of the 30 teams have win/loss and spending ranks that fall within a +/- 10 rank window. During the past five years, 25 teams qualify.

While spending money wisely should be a factor in resultant success, the amount of spending should not be a determinant.

Unfortunately, that's currently the case. Without a salary cap or other structure to modify the current payroll disparity, a minority of teams will continue to spend more to give them a built-in advantage.

Sports: If Major League Baseball Mimicked the NBA

During the past week or so, I've been bogged down in research. I know that Major League Baseball has problems. I know that the Yankees represent that problem. Still. I wanted to compare baseball to the other major sports leagues that I perceived to provide more parity.

Today, I want to focus on the NBA. The NBA has a soft cap, so the league is able to do a pretty decent job of managing payroll. The "soft" cap allows teams to exceed the cap under certain circumstances -- namely, keeping players, but there are several exceptions. Those who otherwise go over a certain level ("tax level") are taxed dollar for dollar.

Outside of there being a soft cap, there is a great deal of structure in the NBA. There are minimum and maximum salaries for players, depending on service time. There are minimum salaries in baseball, but that's really it. No other restrictions. That's how the MLBPA likes it.

Of course, it's never that simple. I encourage you to read Larry Coon's NBA Salary Cap FAQ. Very informative.

While it would be nice to apply such a structure to Major League Baseball, I'm not going to go there yet. Instead, I simply want to review the disparity between the highest and lowest spending teams in each league and then put baseball on a similar scale to see how the league would look.

Baby steps.

So here are the two leagues and their payrolls from top to bottom:

Team	Payroll		Team	Payroll
1. NY Yankees	$208,097,414		1. Los Angeles Lakers	$91,377,313
2. NY Mets	$145,367,987		2. Utah Jazz	$84,654,219
3. Chicago Cubs	$134,058,500		3. Boston Celtics	$84,220,991
4. Boston	$122,435,399		4. New York Knicks	$82,504,966
5. Detroit	$119,160,145		5. Orlando Magic	$80,532,126
6. LA Angels	$118,964,000		6. Cleveland Cavaliers	$79,975,195
7. Seattle	$112,053,666		7. San Antonio Spurs	$79,583,715
8. Philadelphia	$111,209,046		8. Dallas Mavericks	$78,516,175
9. Houston	$102,996,414		9. Washington Wizards	$77,908,291
10. Chicago Sox	$100,598,500		10. Houston Rockets	$74,271,249
11. LA Dodgers	$100,008,592		11. Miami Heat	$74,233,956
12. Atlanta	$94,313,666		12. New Orleans Hornets	$73,656,549
13. St. Louis	$87,703,409		13. Denver Nuggets	$70,325,150
14. San Francisco	$82,616,450		14. Chicago Bulls	$69,967,615
15. Kansas City	$81,384,553		15. Charlotte Bobcats	$66,975,036
16. Milwaukee	$80,182,502		16. Milwaukee Bucks	$66,819,300
17. Cincinnati	$73,558,500		17. Indiana Pacers	$63,830,172
18. Arizona	$73,516,666		18. Golden State Warriors	$63,147,477
19. Texas	$73,439,238		19. Phoenix Suns	$62,325,810
20. Toronto	$72,563,200		20. Sacramento Kings	$62,165,268
21. Colorado	$72,428,000		21. Philadelphia 76ers	$61,945,532
22. Tampa Bay	$68,230,934		22. Atlanta Hawks	$58,911,721
23. Minnesota	$67,634,766		23. Los Angeles Clippers	$58,871,653
24. Cleveland	$66,757,366		24. Toronto Raptors	$57,269,516
25. Washington	$62,001,000		25. New Jersey Nets	$56,776,067
26. Baltimore	$61,885,566		26. Portland Trail Blazers	$56,713,022
27. Oakland	$56,089,250		27. Memphis Grizzlies	$56,292,253
28. San Diego	$37,800,800		28. Minnesota Timberwolves	$54,577,640
29. Florida	$35,774,000		29. Detroit Pistons	$49,914,212
30. Pittsburgh	$25,197,000		30. Oklahoma City Thunder	$49,887,530

The differences between the two are striking at first glance, but let's put some objectivity behind it.

Comparison	MLB	NBA
Total Players	910	407
Total Payroll	$2,648,026,529	$2,048,149,719
Avg Salary	$2,909,919	$5,032,308.89
Avg Players/Tm	30.3	13.6
Avg Payroll	$88,267,551	$68,271,657
Highest Payroll	$208,097,414	$91,377,313
Lowest Payroll	$25,197,000	$49,887,530
Hi/Lo Payroll Disparity	$182,900,414	$41,489,783
Lo/Hi Payroll Disparity %	12.1%	54.6%
Med Payroll	$80,783,528	$66,897,168
Hi/Med Payroll Disp	$127,313,887	$24,480,145
Med/Hi Payroll Disp%	38.8%	73.2%
Hi/Avg Payroll Disp	$119,829,863	$23,105,656
Avg/Hi Payroll Disp%	42.4%	74.7%
Min Salary	$400,000	$457,588
Max Salary	$33,000,000	$23,239,561
Lo/Hi Player Disp %	1.2%	2.0%
Avg/Hi Player Disp %	8.8%	21.7%

I'm comparing MLB to NBA for a couple of reasons. First, both leagues have the same number of teams, so it makes for a more uniform comparison. Second, I'm having a heck of a time finding dependable 2009 salary data for the NFL. If anyone has it, let me know.

But you can't deny the enormous differences here. Let's highlight the bomb shells:

• Lowest payroll is 54.6% of the highest payroll in the NBA; 12.1% in MLB
• Median payroll is 73.2% of the highest payroll in the NBA; 38.8% in MLB
• Average salary is 21.7% of the highest salary in the NBA; 8.8% in MLB

Pretty incredible.  How can a team ever compete (Pittsburgh Pirates) when they have a payroll that is 12.1% of the Yankees?  Granted, the Pirates should be subjected to a minimum payroll because it's a little ridiculous that they only shelled out $25 Million in salaries this year.  But the difference between median and high payroll is also atrocious.

Something that is easy to overlook is the disparity between average player salary and highest salary.  In the NBA, there's not a big jump.  Not the case in baseball.

Of course, you could argue that this has something to do with the number of players in baseball pulling the average salary down.  But it also has a lot to do with the fact that there is no cap, allowing some teams (one in particular) to pay a seemingly unlimited amount for the best players.

There's no need to continuously repeat this, but Major League Baseball doesn't play with anything that is close to an even playing field.  And as the NBA shows, you don't need everyone with the same payroll.  Just give everyone the same tools and put a system in place where the disparity is negligible.

So what would Major League Baseball look like if the disparity between the teams was equal to that in the NBA?  Here it is (in addition to current payroll and the difference):

Team	2009 Payroll	Adjusted	Change
1. NY Yankees	$208,097,414	$118,142,483	-$89,954,931
2. NY Mets	$145,367,987	$109,450,140	-$35,917,847
3. Chicago Cubs	$134,058,500	$108,890,016	-$25,168,484
4. Boston	$122,435,399	$106,671,353	-$15,764,046
5. Detroit	$119,160,145	$104,120,652	-$15,039,493
6. LA Angels	$118,964,000	$103,400,591	-$15,563,409
7. Seattle	$112,053,666	$102,894,443	-$9,159,223
8. Philadelphia	$111,209,046	$101,514,212	-$9,694,834
9. Houston	$102,996,414	$100,728,274	-$2,268,140
10. Chicago Sox	$100,598,500	$96,025,912	-$4,572,588
11. LA Dodgers	$100,008,592	$95,977,695	-$4,030,897
12. Atlanta	$94,313,666	$95,231,161	$917,495
13. St. Louis	$87,703,409	$90,923,968	$3,220,559
14. San Francisco	$82,616,450	$90,461,708	$7,845,258
15. Kansas City	$81,384,553	$86,592,578	$5,208,025
16. Milwaukee	$80,182,502	$86,391,225	$6,208,723
17. Cincinnati	$73,558,500	$82,526,557	$8,968,057
18. Arizona	$73,516,666	$81,643,895	$8,127,229
19. Texas	$73,439,238	$80,581,555	$7,142,317
20. Toronto	$72,563,200	$80,373,989	$7,810,789
21. Colorado	$72,428,000	$80,089,890	$7,661,890
22. Tampa Bay	$68,230,934	$76,167,451	$7,936,517
23. Minnesota	$67,634,766	$76,115,647	$8,480,881
24. Cleveland	$66,757,366	$74,044,231	$7,286,865
25. Washington	$62,001,000	$73,406,246	$11,405,246
26. Baltimore	$61,885,566	$73,324,735	$11,439,169
27. Oakland	$56,089,250	$72,780,719	$16,691,469
28. San Diego	$37,800,800	$70,563,882	$32,763,082
29. Florida	$35,774,000	$64,534,497	$28,760,497
30. Pittsburgh	$25,197,000	$64,500,000	$39,303,000
TOTAL	$2,648,026,529	$2,648,069,706	$43,177

Note that total payroll is nearly identical between actual 2009 and adjusted. Some teams would need to take on more payroll and some would have to take on less (and the Yankees would need to take on significantly less).

For those needing to take on more, it's possible they would do this naturally if you put a cap in play. What motivation do the Pirates have to dish out more salary? Very little.

For all of the teams taking on more, you suddenly have a chance. Every year is "your year." Go for it. Make some signings. Add payroll. It's a risk worth taking.

Right now, it's not a risk worth taking.

Obviously, the league doesn't need to look exactly like this, but it's how Major League Baseball would look if payroll distribution were identical to the NBA. This analysis does nothing to explain how baseball would actually get to this point -- or at least, not yet. We'll pursue it.

How does it look to you?

Sports: Painful Loss a Reminder of why NFL Superior

As a Packers fan, today's loss against Brett Favre and the Vikings was a painful, painful few hours.  I'm not going to go into the details of the game or the emotions associated with it right now.  Still too fresh, and these wounds need to heal.

But the game, Fox's opening act for Game 3 of the World Series later in the evening, provided some clarity.  It was a game like the Packers-Vikings extravaganza that reminds me why the NFL is superior to Major League Baseball.

Now don't get this twisted.  I'm a baseball man.  I prefer baseball as a sport.  And I prefer the history of the game to that of football.

But the NFL, as a league, is light years better.  Why?  Wins and losses are decided on the field.

Losses hurt, but I can accept losses as a Packers fan.  When the Packers (or any team loses), someone needs to be blamed.  Finger pointing, as a fan of an NFL team, is limited to the following:

• Blame the players.
• Blame the coaches/play calling.
• Blame ownership/general manager for poor players and/or product.
• Blame officiating.
• Blame injuries.
• Blame luck.

That's about it.  And if a team is regularly not competitive, you can really only blame the ownership and general manager for not acquiring productive players.  You can blame the officiating and bad luck for a game.  You can blame the players, coaches and injuries for a season.  But after that, success falls squarely on ownership.

Watching the Packers lose today, blame can certainly be spread around.

• Blame Mike McCarthy and his play calling in the first half.
• Blame the offense as a whole for getting 47 yards of offense in the first half.
• Blame Aaron Rodgers for being tentative and holding the ball too long.
• Blame the offensive line for not giving Rodgers any time.
• Blame Dom Capers for not blitzing Favre.
• Blame the defense overall for not getting any pressure on Favre and allowing 38 points.
• Blame the players for stupid penalties.
• Blame special teams for allowing big returns and missing a field goal.
• Blame Ted Thompson for not finding enough good offensive linemen.

You'll even hear fans blaming Thompson for this Favre thing.  That he should have held onto Favre.  I disagree, but it's a decision for which he can be held accountable.

But economics?  The smallest market in all of the NFL, and it's never part of the discussion.

How often do you hear fans talking about big market vs. small market in the NFL?  How often is that, or  economics, used as an excuse?

I'll answer that for you.  Never.

That's why the NFL is great.  Anyone can win.  But not everyone does.  Every team plays by the same rules.  But it is the responsibility of each organization to put the proper pieces in place to succeed.

Those who succeed earn it.

Major League Baseball?  Completely different.  Finger pointing, as a fan of a baseball team, goes like this:

• Blame the players.
• Blame the manager.
• Blame ownership/general manager for poor players and/or product.
• Blame umpires.
• Blame injuries.
• Blame luck.
• Blame economics.
• Other teams on steroids.

Ok, I added the last one for fun.  But, while there is really only one new addition to this list, it's ultimately the most important.

If you are a fan of a small market baseball team, you can blame the players.  But how much blame do they really deserve?  Your team can't afford superior players.  How much should you expect of those players?

You can blame the manager to a point.  The manager needs to be competent (see Ned Yost).  But how much blame can you give a manager who doesn't have players?

How can you blame ownership of a small market team for not signing a big contract player?  Or fielding a team that doesn't make the playoffs when the team's payroll is one half or one fourth of that of the Yankees?

You certainly can blame injuries, but ultimately the reason you can comes back to economics.  An injury to the star player of a small market team is usually too much to overcome.  If the Yankees sustain a major injury?  Big deal.  They'll acquire someone else.

In baseball, it all comes back to economics.  The Mets have the second highest payroll, but they were terrible.  Blame the ownership.

The Yankees had the highest payroll in 2008 and didn't make the playoffs. Clearly, a colossal failure by ownership.

Ownership, managers and players of the Brewers need to take on some blame for not finishing above .500 this season, but do heads really need to roll?  They weren't going to sign CC Sabathia.  Your options for replacing such a player (and Ben Sheets) are seriously limited.

Big market fans roll their eyes when fans of small market teams blame economics, but it's something that doesn't need to be discussed.  Simply even the playing field so that we can blame the players, coaches and ownership.

Is it really that hard?  Do we need to continue to accept things the way they are?

We can.  And if we do, the NFL will continue to reign supreme.  The best sporting event is won or lost on the field.  MLB has become an on-the-field event with extenuating circumstances.

I am actually in the process of completing some research that compares the "competitive balance" of Major League Baseball, National Football League and National Basketball Association.  This data isn't intended to prove the horror of baseball's economics.  As the Mets show, money guarantees nothing.

But it is a study that I feel needs to be done to fully understand the competitive landscape.  More to come.