as we baseball fans enter the clutches of interleague play, the debate over the merit, worth, and viability of the idea is rekindled.  interleague play presents us with an annual reassessment of whether or not american and national league teams should play one another during the regular season.  espn hypes its matchups, runs a nationwide poll to see what fans think of the system, interleague play happens, and then it is forgotten until mid-may the following year.  baseball fans, analysts, players, and officials all have and hold their convictions, and we hear the same regurgitated arguments for and against interleague play on an annual basis.

baseball purists will say that the only time one league should play the other comes in october, but i believe that this system provides all those involved with a positive and engaging environment that fosters competition.  as a proponent of the idea, i have thought of five solid arguments for having interleague play, with the hope that these reasons, among others, will work to retain this current system, as well as disolve the yearly assessment of it.

1) entertaining matchups - the split of major league baseball into its two leagues is not done based on geography, economics, or any other measureable factor.  this creates a situation wherein teams of similar status (whether it be revenue, spending, proximity, fan base, etc.) may be in opposite leagues.  likewise, there is no rule preventing the trading of players from one league to the other, nor a similar rule preventing one team changing their league affiliation.  interleague play brings all these factors to the forefront, and their resolution (and the intrigue associated with them) is realized in a concrete and tangible manner.

when the mets play the yankees, the cubs play the white sox, or the dodgers play the angels, it allows common debates amongst overlapping fan bases to come to fruition objectively within the confines of the diamond, rather than subjective attempts to solve these quandries in over drinks at a bar, the water cooler in the office, or steaks on a dinner table.  similarly, when a high-profile player is traded to another league, it allows him to matchup against his former teammates and employers.  given the volatility of free agency and trades in the current sports landscape, interleague play provides the player to prove his perhaps previously undervalued worth to his employers, or, in cases such as barry zito's debacle against the a's last week, the employers may feel final vindication in letting a player leave for a big payday or trading him away for more than his worth.  finally, there are many matchups throughout history, whether during the regular season when teams were previously in the same league, or during a world series, that may be revisited through interleague play, since the odds of both teams with such a history meeting in october are slim.  for example, when the a's play the dodgers, and a pinch hitter comes to the plate to face huston street in the 9th, anticipation of a gibsonesque moment instantly fills the air and excitement abounds.  

2) evening of the playing field - as i mentioned (however, did not expand upon) in my first argument, teams with analogous economic climates oftentimes are in opposite leagues.  these teams tend to come from similar geographic locations as well, since most are part of a two-team, one-city situations, such as new york, chicago, los angeles, and balimore/washington, d.c.  given the size in both the area and population, as well as the economic prosperity of these cities, they are able to support two teams comfortably.  even when taking into account the split of the fanbase and corresponding disposable incomes, the loyalties in terms of population and pocketbooks are more than most teams that have a city to themselves experience.

as i wrote in a previous posting, there is an absolute need for a salary cap in baseball to, among other positives, foster competition and level the playing field.  while i still vehemently believe that to be the case, i will also argue that one of the very points used to argue against interleague play is actually a factor which enhances its value.  detractors will say that it is unfairly scheduled, with traditionally better teams having to play against the best in the other league, thus skewing the strength of schedule in favor of the weaker teams.  i counter with the idea that the majority of better teams come from bigger markets (since they spend more on personnel and amenities), so interleague play actually works to even the playing field, since these teams must play each other.  without a salary cap, the mets and yankees can spend frivilously and recklessly since they have the revenue to support such activities.  in kind, they must then play each other for two series each year during interleague play, which balances the powers in major league baseball.  while larger market teams are playing their equally powerful rivals from across town, smaller market teams get a bit of a repreive in scheduling, usually playing teams with similar salaries, fan support, etc.  while the yankees and mets slug it out, the devil rays then have a chance to make a run with a three game set against the marlins.  while the schedule does favor the smaller market (and financially weaker) teams, it does help to counter the injustice that is baseball without a cap.

3) shows disparity between leagues - in every sport, there is a stronger league or conference.  the nba's and nhl's western conference and the nfl's afc are both experiencing relative domination against their counterparts.  while this balance of power shifts and teams from the weaker league or conference occassionally wins in the finals (i.e. the miami heat in 2006), there are noticeable trends in each sport.  the way these trends can be objectively measured is through interleague play.  

this is of great importance when analyzing statistics for historical significance, or for managerial or personell decisions.  there is a longstanding tradition of pitchers succeeding during a switch from the american to national league, and subsequent failure if the switch is reversed.  there are many reasons for this, including: smaller american league ballparks, the use of the dh on american league teams, and increased spending of american league teams (during the 2007 season, seven of the top ten spending teams were in the american league).  when the red sox and blue jays acquired josh beckett and a.j. burnett, respectively, from florida, their eras and whips rose significantly in the following year.  likewise, if a position player from the national league cannot field his position effectively, the option for dhing in the american league becomes a way to retain hitting ability while resting and focusing on offense.  this is seen in mike piazza's move from san diego to oakland.  also, hitters in the minor leagues who are dreadful in the field can be called up, or traded, to american league teams, like travis hafner of the indians.  for these aforementioned reasons, among others, the relative success on the field for both teams and players must be analyzed according to the balance of power amonst the two leagues.  in fact, it is my belief that the homefield advantage for the world series should be decided by interleague play records, rather than by the all-star game.  it gives more players and teams a chance to make a difference over more games, and increasing the sample size to more data is key to making a solid decision in this matter. 

4) small percentage of games breaks monotony - the entire interleague play schedule encompasses a total of four series, or twelve games, each year.  that makes up only 13.5% of total games played by a team in a 162-game schedule.  however, like a class taking two or three field trips in an academic year, or a businessman going on a few sales trips in a fiscal cycle, a small number of trips or experiences outside the daily routine can make a fairly significant positive impact on a person's mental and physical state.  it may not seem like a series during interleague play is all that different from a regular intraleague series, but there are variations that create a more intriguing environment for those involved.  oftentimes, media coverage and fan interest are heightened, and players are able to travel to cities, play in ballparks, and interact with players they might have otherwise been unable to do.  one such example is a story from the atlanta journal-constitution over the weekend, naming several young atlanta braves players who were awestruck over the chance to play in historic fenway park.  seasoned veterans who have been in the same league for their entire career also welcome the change, as was also evidenced from john smoltz's chance to pitch in fenway over the weekend during the same series.  while a game or series may look the same across the board to us as fans, it is vitally important for the players to have a chance to experience some changes in their yearly routine.

5) excersizing managerial prowess/dh rule disparity -  the designated hitter is only allowed in the american league, while national league pitchers must bat while they remain in the game.  as i have also mentioned in a previous post, i believe the dh rule should be universalized between the leagues.  however, interleague play does afford some interesting and exciting situations with regards to the dh rule. 

primarily, it forces pitchers from the american league to bat, leading to some awkward and comical plate appearances.  i personally feel that this makes games entertaining, as it allows these players to exhibit their hitting ability (or at the very least, no longer hide their inability).  pitchers who were otherwise relegated solely to the mound and defense are now able to aid in their own cause offensively.  however, this rule affords more than simple intrigue or comedy.  it also forces managers to adapt to a new rule, and how they react in these instances showcases their ability as a manager to a greater extent.  while its fairly easy to send hafner or david ortiz to the plate as a dh every game, eric wedge and terry francona must decide if their increased production at the plate is worth decreased efficiency in the field when playing in national league parks during interleague play.  likewise, national league managers must decide whom on their team might benefit the most from hitting without fielding duties during series in american league ballparks.  pinch hitting and fielding changes are much more scrutinized and important in these cases.  it takes teams, players, and managers out of their element and comfort zone, and the decisions they make when faced with these obstacles provides an insight into their prowess as managers. 

the fallout from the duke lacrosse scandal will be lost in the upcoming weeks.  in just a few days, as the legal proceedings wrap up, the names of the accused, the accusor, and all those involved in this situation will evaporate into the warm summer air. 

after all, with the nhl playoffs underway, the nba playoffs about to begin, the nfl draft in two weeks, and the baseball season just getting underway, sports networks will focus their attention on these events.

likewise, racist comments made by don imus, paternity tests for anna nicole's baby, and the inevitable paris hilton crotch shot (aren't we due) will hinder the news networks' ability to continue coverage on the duke case.

this is an inescapable truth.  with new 24-hour networks dedicated to news, and augmented by internet sites and  cell phone and blackberry updates of the same ilk, there will enough news created in the next few days (however insignificant) to hide the consequences form the duke lacrosse scandal.

knowing full well this will be the case, i say: let's not allow that to happen.

as sports bloggers, we would all consider ourselves fans, and most of us write about social themes derived from sports.  we have, and will continue to, comment upon the racial, political, and personal undertones in the world of sports.  we give our opinions as to how these events and their consequences affect teams, players, and fans in both on- and off-field situations.  in short, we as bloggers and fans run the gamut of opinion making and sharing on a daily basis.

not to say that we have the power to sway the opinions of so many casual fans, but we do have a propensity for (or at least an interest in) writing about these issues.  those who read the site, as well as our families, friends, and colleagues, are influenced by our opinions, and we should do our best to keep the duke case within the crosshairs of public opinion.

you may ask why...why should we drag this on any further?  why should we continue to focus on something that only hurt those involved?  why should we contribute to the thousands who have already shared their opinion in a public venue, be it television, written page, or the internet?

because, as jemele hill of espn.com wrote so well today, "we're sorry" just doesn't cut it.

just because no one was killed, raped, assaulted, or otherwise physically harmed does not equate to the common schoolyard epitaph "no harm, no foul."  i don't believe the national public understands the consequences for these three young men. 

they were smart enough to attend duke university, and well-rounded and athletically gifted enough to play a division 1 sport while there.  this is not a slouch of a division 1 school, nor is it a case of their athletic prowess pushing them through classes on their way to fame and fortune at the next level.  despite their talent in this area, nike sponsorships and games on national networks aren't in their future.  although their status as athletes affords them scholarship money, training gear, and notoriety amongst their peers, it does not ensure (or, in many cases, even offer) them a career.

this is not to say that these three student-athletes were angels..in fact, they were blue devils by trade.  i have no idea as to how these students were perceived, and i have never met a single one of them.  i have no authority to comment on their personalities, both individually and as a group.  in fact, no one seemed to have an opinion about them - until they were accused of henous and unspeakable crimes.  it's funny to see public perception change in these instances; in the blink of an eye, it becomes posh to kick them while they are down.  after all, it puts people in the majority, for what it seems are all the right reasons.

however, when the tides turn, those who let unwarranted criticism flow forth unabated from their tongues clam up.  in the same instant it took for them to join the public bashing, they join the new public humility, awkwardly (but privately) swallowing their words of hate.  one of these students' most outspoken critics, espn's hill, publicly ate her words, and while her original comments remain irresponsibly hurtful, she deserves respect for her ability to open up and admit wrongdoing, all while ackowledging the inconsequential nature of the apology.

while i will say that i never assumed these three young men were guilty of anything, i will not dwell on it, because that isn't the purpose of this post.  i will say that after all they have been through, they are guilty of the following thing: as a team, they hired a stripper, under her own freewill and for monetary compensation, to perform and entertain their team at a function.  that's it.  period.  something that i, as a conservative, college-educated, american male, have done several times, spiraled into a lifetime of ill repute for them.

the funny thing about these accusations - these words - is that they hurt without truth.  its like taking caution to never trip up, never fall - and yet receiving scars, as if you had, that mangle you for the rest of your life.  there will never be a time when their names or a recollection of the incident do not evoke memories of the house, and all the false reports we heard for months while these boys, their families, their teammates, and their school stewed in public humiliation.  think about anyone you know who was falsely accused of something terrible, even though it was later found to be untrue.  i bet you still associate that person with the event, instead of freeing him/her from it following their proof of innocence.  

that will be the case for these young men for the rest of their lives, which is precisely why i have refrained from using their names in this post.  not to say that the readers don't already have these monikers ingrained in their heads, but rather that i don't wish to contribute to this process.  think of it like vegetarians...they know that they aren't going to save a cow by not eating a steak - its too late in the process - but its the principle of the matter.

these three students will be marked with this event for the rest of their lives, as will all those who are related to, or associated with, them.  it will hinder them from getting jobs, engaging in social functions, establishing relationships, and functioning as they grow up and continue to mature.  the book signings, talk show appearances, and straight-to-tv drama movies based on the event will only go so far to build back what was irretrievably lost.  this incident will affect them in all aspects of life, and it exists only as a creation of an over-zealous district attorney and a malicious young woman.

i won't hesitate to mention their names - mike nifong and crystal gail mangum.  we all need to know who they are, as it is vitally important to remember those two names as we move forward.  it would be easy to retaliate against these individuals  in a venue such as this, but it would be just as egregious an offense as was committed by those who unfairly criticized the accused in the first place.  to assign these two a myriad of harmful labels (of which i have plenty), and relegate their fate in the future would be a contradiction of my argument against those who did just this when the charges were originally filed. 

we do not know which one of these two lied and which one chose to keep going, turning the knife into these young mens' backs with each press conference and public appearance.  both could be equally at fault, only one could be mostly responsible, or this could be the work of both these two, as well as other forces of which were are currently unaware. 

the bottom line is: beyond the role of  these two, we don't know.  we may never know what each exactly contributed to this disaster.  we may never know who else was directly involved in ruining three innocent young mens' lives.  what we do know is that all those who came out in support of ms. mangum and d.a. nifong without a proper conscious and with an ideal that stretched beyond the facts should taste as much of the same hurt that they placed upon these young men as possible. 

jesse jackson, rev. al sharpton, and all others who blindly took up the fictitious cause of a cunning young woman should not be permitted to end their penance with an apology.  more accountability is needed if one is willing to spout off unfounded accusations without due diligence.  this is precisely why, despite the neverending onslaught of news from around the world, we must not allow this event to fade from our minds.  it is certainly not on the same level as other widespread human indecencies throughout history, but just as the remembrance of them contributes to prevention of the same in the future, hopefully the same process will work for this scandal.  

this may affect the aformentioned detractors inasmuch as harming their pride, political ambitions, or personal agendas for a few days.  it devastated these three young men for the rest of their lives.        

we as bloggers all have opinions as to how sports can be altered to better meet our needs as fans.  while we all have differing ideas as to how this can be accomplished, but we generally require lots of scoring (why soccer hasn't taken off), lots of action (why baseball games are tedious to watch in their entirety), and a solid understanding of rules and strategies (why hockey fails to crack the top three in america). 

but beyond those aspects of on-the-field rules changes (perhaps the subject of a later posting), there are many "behind the scenes" changes i feel are needed in the current sports environment.  these are manipulations of rules regarding issues in sports that do not directly affect the on-field performance, but are still ifluential in how we watch and perceive sports.  here are five such changes i believe are necessary:

1) Enact a salary cap in baseball

why its needed: while parity in baseball has been more substantial during the last decade, with teams like the marlins and diamondbacks winning the world series and wild card and smaller market teams succeeding deep into the playoffs, the larger markets and more powerful teams still drastically attract the talent pool.  bottom-dwelling teams like the devil rays, royals, rockies, marlins, and pirates act as an extended farm system for the yankees, red sox, cubs, mets, angels, and dodgers.  to put this in perspective, last year the yankees' payroll was just under $200 million, compared with the marlins' $14 million.  you read that correctly; you could square the marlins' payroll and it would still be less than that of the yanks.  each year, it is a case of the smaller market teams bringing up their young talent (acquired through their good draft positions and trades with the larger market teams) and having them individually succeed while the team fails.  following this "tryout," one of the more prominent teams offers up more money than the weaker team could ever hope to match, and that player moves out of an area where he is beloved and offers a ray of hope to a fledgling franchise.  don't be surprised if carl crawford, alex gordon, hanley ramirez, carlos quentin, and other young studs end up in new york or boston.

how it can happen: just like the nba and nfl, cap the salaries that can be offered to a full roster of players.  instead of wild spending sprees each offseason that encourage teams to bid up mediocre players and lavish good ones, have the contract negotiations mean something.  have general managers and scouts do their job by identifing bargain and bust players, and operate within the salary cap.  there is no need to drastically cut salaries overnight - the cap could start at $180 million and shrink by $10 million a year for 3-5 years.  that way, teams like the yankees would need to curtail spending, while owners of the pirates, marlins, and royals could increase theirs with the knowledge that they can't always be outbid.

why it won't happen:  the player's union and larger market teams would never agree to this, since it is these groups who have originally inflated player salaries and now reap the benefits.  also, smaller market teams gain funds through revenue-sharing and the luxury tax.  these teams make more money (as a percentage of total income) than larger market teams since their payroll is so small and their take from revenue sharing is so high.  while fans of these teams have long complained about the ownership inactivity, the owners themselves see these teams as business ventures set up to bring in revenue, and under the current system that is precisely what they do. 

2) Establish a tournament in college football   

why its needed: championships, seedings, careers, legacies, memories, and livelihoods of college student athletes, coaches, and fans are decided by computers and out-of-touch sportswriters.  the former of these ranking systems is too objective and the latter too subjective.  with so much riding on each game, including the lifelong dreams and livelihoods of so many underprivledged young adults, any discrepancies in rankings and seedings should be played out on a field where the individuals the outcome effects are the only ones who have an affect on the outcome.

how it can happen: immediately following the end of the regular season, begin playing a 16-team tournament with the top 2 teams earning first round byes.  there is well over a month (and sometimes close to two) between the end of the season and the bcs bowl games, which is ample time to play through the rounds of the tournament.  other non-bcs games are irrelevant the way it is, and can be played during the week between these tournament games.  can you imagine watching bcs tournament games friday night and saturday throughout the day, then nfl on sunday for a month and a half straight?  the whole tournament would be over by the time the nfl playoffs roll around, and wouldn't take away any viewership or interest from the pro league.  the higher-ranked teams would get homefield for each matchup, with the "final four," third place, and championship games being played on neutral sites, which would constitute the 4 existing bcs games we have now, rotating each year for the championship.  this way, teams like boise state, who finish the year undefeated, would have a chance (albeit slim) to knock off ohio state and florida, negating any guesswork about who is college football champion.

why it won't happen: there is too much money to be made by schools, administrators, ncaa officials, and bcs system supporters to have them change the current methodology.  year after year there exists a split national title, or several schools who stake some claim to the trophy, clouding the awarding of the championship in controversy.  likewise, year after year bcs supporters point out the flawlessness of their system (its computer-based and objective, it rewards playing tougher opponents, etc.) while attacking several aspects of an idea such as this (the season would be too long, recruiting would be cut short, there is a risk of injury, the other bowls would be negated, etc.).  basically, those with the power have too much invested interest in maintaining the status quo.

3) Allow basketball players to skip college and enter the NBA draft

why its needed: i am a staunch proponent of an 18-year-old age indicating one becoming a consenting adult in all ways, shapes, and forms.  if one can be sent to fight and die for a cause determined by one's nationality, then one can also make his or her own decisions within the confines of the law.  in the case of basketball, i believe david stern was misguided in his attempt to "save young men from themselves" by instituting the rule requiring players to attend at least one year of college or turn 19 before entering the nba draft.  not only does it prohibit young men with a talent from earning money and providing for their family as an adult, it has also damaged the college game as well.  while many will point to durant, oden, conley, wright, and others enhancing the college game, there also exist many negatives to this rule.  first, these student-athletes are failing classes knowingly because they will be gone the following year, jeopardizing the academic integrity of the school.  second, the turnover on teams will be too great, hindering the recruitment process and making it hard for fans to establish affinity for a player.  finally, each year many players will be in the national spotlight for many months, taking away from the team concept and being a distraction as they look toward the future.  

how it can happen: simply put, david stern must revoke the ruling and allow 18 year old adults to enter the nba draft.  if he is concerned about these young men getting misinformed about their future and promised riches and influence they can't acheive, then enact a rule that allows high school players who sign with an agent and go undrafted to re-enter college for another year or have a supplemental draft for the nbadl.  if funding and marketing efforts are increased for the dl, then these players can still support families, as well as build a name for themselves.  if done correctly, the dl can act as a farm system for the nba, and more prominent and recognizable faces will enter this league for grooming before their time in the nba.

why it won't happen: america has already fallen in love with durant and oden, and many believe that they would not have seen these stars in action before the nba draft if not for this rule.  a higher percentage of draft picks will be more recognizable, as there will be more from american colleges, less foreign players, and no high school players.  we like to know our stars, and this rule allows us the opporunity to get to know them before they are professionals.  the only problem is that this rule violates their rights as americans.

4) Universalize or eliminate the DH  

why its needed:  in no other professional sports league are two divisions or  conferences seperated by an on-field rule such as this.  imagine if only the afc counted safeties, or only the nba's western conference allowed dribbling with either hand, or only the nhl's atlantic division enforced power plays.  this drastically changes the way the game is played, and as teams go through a season, their mindset, strategy, etc. are completely different than other teams in the same league vying for the same title.  its somewhat comforting to know that when the heat play the bulls, they will be playing by the same rules and using the same positions as the clippers do when they play the spurs.  in mlb, this isn't the case.  when the indians and red sox duel, ortiz and hafner slug it out and then ride the pine while their team fields.  however, when the cardinals and cubs play a series, chris carpenter and carlos zambrano have to face each other in alternating roles usually two or three times a game.  furthermore, stats and awards are heavily affected by this rule.  national league pitchers have an easier role, since they do not face a dh.  in addition, mvp awards and hall of fame honors are kept from dhs due to their role (there has not been a full-time dh mvp or hall of fame inductee in the history of the game).  i am not a proponent of either side of this coin - both have positive and negative aspects.  however, the fact that two leagues have a rule so divisive between them is absurd.

how it can happen:  perhaps a trial period can be enacted to test the alternate rule in each league prior to a leaguewide vote.  interleague play does not offer a long enough period of time to adequately test this new rule.  this way, american league managers can throw pitchers out to bat and use pinch hitters and runners more selectively, while national league teams can move an underacheiving fielder but overacheiving hitter to the dh slot, upgrading two aspects of the team (i.e. dodgers' use of piazza).  of course, players like ortiz and hafner would need to learn a position, but i don't think that too many national league pitchers (minus arroyo) would mind taking a break between innings instead of stepping to the plate.

why it won't happen: both leagues are too set in their ways and too many memorable moments have happened on either side of this rule (fisk's waving hr in boston, gibson's walk-off in la, etc.), that either side can defend their position.  in addition, too many players make too much money as dhs to ever allow that position to be given up.  the al is considered more competitive and exciting because of the dh, and the players' union would certainly never allow the dh to be abolished.  on the flipside, the nl embraces the strategic element of pinch hitting and pitchers hitting too much to give up.  being that a rule change would require 2/3 of the vote, it will not be happening in the near future.

5) Guarantee NFL contracts  

why its needed: the nfl is the only major professional sports league that does not guarantee its players the dollars for which they signed, regardless of length of time with the team, quality of play, etc.  many point to this aspect of the league as a positive, as players must keep up their level of play in order to retain the contract they were awarded.  however, there are several reasons why this is a misinformed position to take.  first, teams backload contracts in order to push players away following their prime and take the least amount of salary cap hit they can.  for instance, a player can be signed for 5 years, $25 million.  at face value, this looks like a standard $5 million/year salary, which is pretty good.  however, it could look like this: year 1 - $2 million, year 2 - $3.5 million, year 3 - $4.5 million, year 4 - $7 million, year 10 - $10 million.  the team may have every intention of cutting a player after year 2 or 3, meaning that they only pay about 20-30% of the total contract, even after the player provides almost half the service to the team.  second, if a player is injured, there is no team accountability to pay him after the injury.  football is a violent sport, marred with career-altering or ending injuries.  under the current structure, if a player breaks his leg and is unable to play ever again in the first year of his deal, he is cut and the team takes that money back, without taking a cap hit.  third, teams could not spend frivolously and overpay mediocre players.  they would be held more accountable to their financial decisions, since cutting or releasing a player would result in the team taking the financial hit for as long as the contract lasted after that.  finally, the nfl's treatment of ex-players has long been scrutinized, hindering the livelihood of a cut or injured player following their career.

how it can happen: the nfl and nflpa would simply need to agree on this change to the collective bargaining agreement, and allow players to collect all the money owed to them over the course of the contract.  although original contracts would be cheaper, the amount would be guaranteed, thus allowing the players to focus on their performance, instead of remaining healthy.  in addition, their financial future would be guaranteed, so making choices with regards to finances would be easier and less controversial.  teams would also be willing to listen to this offer, since there would not be so much salary cap manipulation year in and year out.

why it won't happen: although the nflpa would tend to agree with this stance, the owners would not.  while the owners would have a bit more simplicity and order in their negotiations, the thought of paying a player long after he has been released or injured is too much for them.  they would also be concerned with a performance drop-off with guaranteed money, as well as an inability to sell or move the club with so much already set.  

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.        

on this, a sports blogging site, many authors tend to steer clear of stretching "athletics" into other realms and spheres of influence.  as is the case with many posts on this site (as well as my own), the vast majority deal with statistics, rings, controversies, contests, and other topics that dominate the sports media market on a daily basis.

occasionally, some attempt to look further into a sports story or event, and explain why said event is occurring on a deeper level.  whether this explanation leads the audience into sociology, psychology, criminology, or any other measure of study, these are worth exploring, and i believe a greater percentage of the sports media circuit ought to be dedicated to this pursuit (much like the series "outside the lines" on espn).

an event that triggered this type of reaction within me was witnessed at steelers' training camp during the past few years.  my father and i have made it an annual trip (a "pilgrimage to latrobe," if you will), and we enjoy seeing the new draft picks, free agents, and coaches, as well as our favorites, like hines, troy, and alan faneca.

we first went two years ago, and we didn't know what to expect.  we didn't know what we were doing, where to go, or what other people around us were thinking or doing themselves.  when the gates to the camp opened, everyone (who was able) started sprinting up a hill toward the facility.  not knowing what was going on, i joined in and was one of the first to reach a fence outside the the player's dining hall. 

i soon realized this stampede was all a battle for position closest to the fence and the building to line up for autographs.  the players all walked from their position meetings, breakfast, and weight room in the building out onto the practice field.  i was lucky enough to get some signatures and talk to some players, then joined my father on our chairs to watch practice.

at the beginning and end of every practice, this race to meet the players and get autographs commenced once again.  combined with the limited space, unyielding heat, and large crowds, the players' discretion as to who gets "face time" and signatures puts many fans over the edge.  after competing in the first few races to the fence, i realized that it was safer and more relaxing and enjoyable to simply find a nice spot with my father, watch practice, and talk steelers football.

however, i didn't stop observing this ritualistic chase to five seconds of glory.  i noticed where players went, with whom they spoke, and to whom they granted autographs and meetings among the fans.  not surprisingly, players gave more attention (in the form of pictures, signatures, and talk time) to children in attendance. 

i never thought twice about this fact, since it seems so rational and routine.  athletes (and adults in general) warm up when they see children and grant them more attention.  this is a common theme amongst society as a whole and is taken as fact.  after i left camp and thought more about it, i came up with other reasons (other than the aforementioned) that children might be granted preferential treatment in this environment.

1) Good Public Relations - whether this derives from an athlete's own sense of morality, or it is pressured through by an agent, team official, or teammate, it makes sense for an athlete to show good nature towards children.  just as a political candidate will often take the time to pick up and hug a child before shaking an adult's hand, and just as a group seeking funding will use a child as their example of the severity of a problem (i.e. the term "posterchild"), athletes instantly gain credibility as a "family man," as well as being "down to earth," "personable," and "approachable."  in a sport as violent as football, and with a lifestyle that often mirrors on-the-field exploits, this is crucial to how the public perceives a player.

2) Ability to Identify - most players in the nfl have been football stars their entire lives.  from excelling in high school to attending a college with a free ride to entering the draft, these individuals have been focused on football and all that surrounds the sport for their entire lives...except from their early childhood.  if a player sees a middle-aged man with a nine-to-five job and a family standing next to an 8 year-old boy totally enthralled with their presence, the player can only identify with what the 8 year-old is thinking.  the player himself has been an 8-year-old with a favorite team and player, and can empathize with what the boy is thinking and feeling.  he has never been (and will most likely never be) a middle-aged man with a nine-to-five, since his career and financial situation will never require this type of work.  thus, he grants the child the autograph because he knows how he would feel if he received one as a child himself.

3) Solidifying Name - just as an athlete can better identify with what a younger fan is thinking, he also knows what it feels like to have one favorite player himself.  an athlete is aware, from his own experience, that one game, play, or personal interaction can "lock in" his name with a young fan for a longer period of time than it could with an adult.  oftentimes, athletes have undying praise and adulation for a player of a previous era, and should their eras overlap, the athlete is awestruck at the chance to play (alongside or against) his childhood idol.  adult fans are more likely to judge a player based on his body of work on the field, as well as keep athletes on a shorter leash.  they are more critical and less forgiving than children.  thus, it is easier for an athlete to indelibly mark himself as a child's favorite, and also make sure he is considered the child's favorite for a longer period of time, irregardless of quality of play, on-field success, and off-field incidents

4) Knowledge of Signature Use - when an athlete gives someone his signature, it is an extension of himself.  with the market for signed memorabilia skyrocketing, the simple act of adding a scribbled mark to an item instantly and exponentially increases its value.  athletes are told what they can and can't sign, how many items they can sign, and what they can charge per signature.  the sports memorabilia market is flooded with fake and real signatures from any athlete imaginable, and the purveyors of these goods see to make a significant profit on their sale.  if an autograph dealer buys a signed item and resells it for a higher price, he makes a profit equal to the difference in the transactions.  however, if he obtains it at a public event, such as a training camp, he then sells it for a 100% profit.  athletes know this fact, since they oftentimes deal directly with these businesses.  approached by a man with a binder full of hundreds of photos waiting to be signed and a child with a cap or trading card, the athlete will choose to give his signature to the child.  he is more confident that the signed item will be cherished and proudly displayed for a long period of time versus taken to a store, framed, and resold to another fan unable to make the trip to meet the player at a 100% profit to a man with the means to do so. 

5) Memorabilia Sales - most teams judge the popularity of their players based on the sales of that player's memorabilia.  nfl teams receive a royalty from each piece of memorabilia sold by their organization, retail stories, nfl shops, online, or any other venue.  they know how many fans are buying what items, and if a given item (such as a jersey or bobblehead doll) is player-specific, they can gauge a player's measurable popularity versus his peers on the team and within the league as a whole.  being that a higher percentage of disposable income is spent on sports- and team-related gifts and items for children than for adults, athletes know that if an 8-year-old tells his parents that he likes that athlete,  more memorabilia bearing his name and likeness will move off the shelves versus the outcome if a middle-aged man tells his wife the same.  this increases sales of said athletes' products, and the team judges him as more popular amongst the fan base, increasing his stock and bargaining power during contract negotiations.

6) Legacy - just as a player's popularity can be strengthened during his career by means of interaction with children (through good p.r. and increased memorabilia sales), his legacy has a greater chance of success following his retirement as well.  the topic of an athlete's increased ability to "lock in" his namesake with younger fans has already been discussed, but this oftentimes extends well past his playing career.  when this young fan grows up to have influence over other fans, he will spread his knowledge and conviction about his favorite childhood player with others.  if he is a simple fan of sports, he can reminisce with friends or blog on a site such as this.  if he is a father and husband, he can share his affinity for this player with his family (like my father did with jack lambert and like i will do with hines ward), creating a brand new fan base in another generation for the given athlete.  if he acquires a position in sports media or administration, then he can have even greater influence over a broader audience of sports fans and the public alike.  let's say the young fan in question is the 8 year-old who attends training camp and his favorite athlete is a 3rd-year player who is 24 years old.  that means that when the fan is in his late 20s and early 30s, the athlete will be in his mid- and late-40s, the prime time for an athlete to become a coach, media personality, or voted into the hall of fame.  personality and popularity matter a great deal in all of these pursuits, and any candidate for any of these positions requires a solid and broad fan base to support their cause. 

i don't know if all of these assertions are accurate, as i do not claim to be a sociologist or psychologist.  i simply wanted to share my thoughts with this audience, with the hope that you all would provide feedback about this issue from personal experiences or thoughts of your own.  at the very least, this post shows how a simple act or interaction with a fan more than 20 years prior can do quite a bit to alter the athlete's career and post-career life in many ways.  perhaps next time you see mean joe greene throw a child his jersey in the famous coke commercial from over a quarter century ago, you will think about what is going through mean joe's mind, and how it has impacted his legacy to this day.