much has been made of competition throughout the history of sports.  the idea of setting, developing, and retaining a solid and consistent level of competition is at the heart of every sporting culture.  without riveting contests, the sports world implodes, as all elements of its subculture implode upon itself. 

without the realistic chance of victory, teams, players, and coaches fail to focus their energy and attention on their craft, thus lowering both quality of play and expectations.  these lowered expectations and general apathy towards a sport fails to capture the attention of its fan base, whether it be a city, region, or nation.

cases like these occur frequently in sports.  each year, there are teams designated and relegated to fail before competition begins.  as spring training is upon us and baseball season less than two weeks away, the kansas city royals once again find themselves in this cycle.  their owner has spent little money, thus the quality of players is subpar, thus the coaching and existing players will begin to exert less energy in a few months, thus the city will fail to rally behind its team.  everyone who knows baseball knows this, and it is an inevitability.

a point of contention in this debate is the existence of dynasties.  namely, the issue of dynasties as they relate to the popularity and advancement of a sport or league is paramount in dissecting parity within the sporting realm.  i believe that if a team or competitor is viewed as doing things "the right way," he/she/it is exalted and praised.  the patriots built their teams through the draft and were led to three championships in four years by a designated backup qb and a failed nfl coach.  tiger woods values only hard work and family, and exudes class each time he steps into the tee box.  these are but two examples of "the right way" to go about building a dynasty.  parity is sacrificed for the continued success of one entity in one sport, and the public accepts this because it sets a good example and warms the hearts of many.

on the other hand, think of a team or player who achieves greatness through what we deem as "improper" behavior or attitude.  all of a sudden, their acceptance is not assured, and we wait and hope for their skills to fade, replaced by a newer, fresher, and more "proper" set of competitors.  teams that employ unorthodox or unacceptable practices are not readily accepted as leaders of dynasties.  the raiders of the 70s (cheap, dirty), the pistons of the 80s (brash, inflammatory), and the unlv runnin' rebels of the early 90s (thugs, showboats) all showed the nations what we didn't want in a champion.  likewise, as barry bonds sits less than 30 home runs from immortality, we wish and pray that something breaks down, whether it is his body, psyche, or cloud of ambiguity surrounding his performance enhancer use.  we wish that innocent ryan howard or philanthropic albert pujols would increase their output enough to force barry out of our minds and off of our print pages.  aside from charging, trying, and convicting these champions in the court of public opinion, there isn't much fans can do besides wait and hope.

but what if a dynasty doesn't exist?  what if the competition is (in theory) wide open?  at that point, whether it is the retirement or movement of a key figure (think jordan leaving the bulls or montana leaving the 49ers), or simply a case of a league or the field "catching up" to the current champion, competition sets in. 

as was aforementioned, the level of competition is important to many elements of the congruity of a team and its fans.  it is also crucial to the success of the marketing of said team or athlete, and affects both the league and city which has a vested interest in his/her/its success.  in short, maintaining competition is invaluable to the success of all those associated with the sport.

certainly, the major leagues and governing bodies in both collegiate and professional sports control the element of competition in different manners.  there exist a myriad of examples - both on-field and off - to support this.  when bob gibson and pitchers became too dominant, mlb lowered the pitching mound.  when tiger outdrove everyone on the tour, the pga lengthened its courses.  when individual defenders couldn't keep up with quick guards, the nba allowed (albeit limited) zone defense. when injured quarterbacks prevented teams (without contingency plans) to compete for the remainder of a season, the nfl instituted more stringent "roughing the passer" rules.  various leagues' attempt to change rules on the field have gone a long way to maintain competition amongst its teams.

however, i would argue that off-field guidelines have done more to reach and keep a balance amongst teams.  there exists a ceiling as to how much a league's administrators can alter on-field rulings without tainting or manipulating the outcomes of games.  many of the rules have been met with disdain (i.e. steelers' lb jack lambert remarks after being informed of rules against hitting the qb: "all quarterbacks should wear dresses"), leagues risk driving away fans of the current game with too much change in a short period of time.

instead, the off-field rules, specifically economically-driven statues, have been more effective in maintaining competition.  the salary cap and free agency, now commonplace in sports, was once an exceedingly revolutionary idea.  loyalty between a team and its players was accepted and expected, and many times, the city or area where an athlete grew up and honed his skills was the same place where he showcased them.  however, some areas produce more stars than others, more prestigious institutions could easily recruit them, and more accomplished, thriving, metropolitan cities could attract them.  this created areas (and teams) of vast superiority, with little mobility possible between teams.  once a team got strong, it remained so for the foreseeable future. 

with free agency and a salary cap, players could move to teams with more need and money under the cap.  this system works exceptionally well in balancing talent amongst teams in a given league, and creates a cyclical effect capable of managing competition.  the more money a team has, the better players it can attract.  the better players it can attract, the more success it experiences.  the more success it experiences, the more money players, coaches, and personnel request.  the more money they request, the less likely the team is to be able to accommodate their needs.  the less needs that are met, the more they want to leave.  and when they leave, they go to teams with the most money (theoretically) less current levels of success.  as long as teams remain under the cap and thoroughly invested in their own success, this system will continue to work.

three of the four major sports leagues currently have this system in place.  the nhl, nba, and nfl sees a fair amount of turnover within its ranks, and even if it does not for a period of time, there still exist great expectations year in and year out due to big free agent signings or coaching overhauls (see: arizona cardinals).  however, mlb does not have a salary cap, a fact which is the main contributor to my displeasure with the sport and the league.  while the yankees and red sox and cubs spend exorbitant amounts on the best players each year, teams like the pirates, royals, and devil rays do not or cannot, rendering them irrelevant most years (the tigers' run last year and the marlins' world series in the late 90s notwithstanding).  media deals, merchandise sales, and other revenue streams that the yankees experience are not possible for smaller markets.  however, since they have no league-enforced spending limit, they are able to use this advantage to bring in the best of the best each year.  this does little to enhance parity amongst teams in baseball.

in collegiate sports, the same system applies.  while notre dame is the only ncaa school to have its own television marketing rights (with nbc), conferences have agreements with networks and media, making their schools more popular during the recruitment process.  in addition to that element, recruiting at larger, more accomplished schools is also bolstered by past success and current notoriety.  for example, roy williams can point to unc's grooming of michael jordan, record number of ncaa tournament appearances, or promise of future success, compared with thad matta selling a recruit only on the potential of “success to come" if he attends ohio state.  while there is a distinct division between the "haves" and "have nots" in collegiate athletics, that line is blurred in some sports more so than in others.

a solid case study can be seen between college football and basketball.  first of all, recruitment is the major force behind a team's success in either pursuit.  the more quality players brought in (especially since they only stay for one to four years, thus having less time to hone their skills), the more success that school will see.  as was stated before, larger and more accomplished schools have an easier time than others at attracting the best players.  one would assume that this system prevents upward or downward mobility. 

however, in only one of these sports is that the case.  in college football, there is a lack of a playoff system beyond one game.  thus, if a team has the best players and simply plays out its schedule without a hiccup, they find themselves in a bcs game.  many teams start, remain, and end on top.  that is vastly different than college basketball, where a team may begin the year on top and never fall out of the top five in either poll, but still must contend with 63 other teams each will an equal chance at the trophy to conclude their season.  they must win six games in a row to end their season if they want to be named the champions.  this is the ultimate case of injecting parity into an otherwise caste sport.

the same applies to professional sports.  like college basketball, the nfl and atp require a series of wins to earn a title.  the regular season may decide seeding, homefield, and byes, but it cannot win playoff games or matches.  a team or player must come together and focus to beat the best of the best, in succession, to win it all.  in the pga and nascar, world ranking or poll times may determine when one tees off or where one starts, but an athlete still must beat the entire field on a given day or weekend.  

the professional sports with a lower level of competition and parity are the nba and nhl, where the regular season earns homecourt or homeice and a better seeding, and there are a series of games during which some may be lost and a title still achieved.  consecutive wins are not necessary, and playing a series usually heavily favors the better of the two teams (at least more so than in the aforementioned sports).  the lowest form of parity can be found in mlb, where an abundance of regular season games determine seeding and homefield for the playoffs, but with the added spending imbalance.  again, another reason for my distaste for mlb.

every fan has their own view on issues of parity and competition.  i argue that it is a fan's loyalties which shape his or her perspective on these two elements of sport.  it just so happens that my loyalties lie with teams in various sports who do not benefit from their given league's parity rules.  basically, i am a fan of elite teams in leagues which value parity and i am a fan of fledgling teams in leagues which do not place as much importance on enhancing competition.  as a steelers and tarheels fan, i revel in their success year after year, but cringe when i know their season comes down to a series of one-game playoffs.  likewise, as an athletics and timberwolves fan, i like their ability to make the playoffs, but their consistent first-round exits to superior teams can grow old quickly.  

there is no major point to this post, just to share my thoughts about the confluent issues of parity and competition in sports.  i suppose that, come tournament time, it helps to share my bi-daily nervousness with an audience.  it just so happens that my teams never seem to benefit from the increasing or decreasing parity in any of the major sports.