Talk:Major professional sports league

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous discussion on this page can be found at:

• /Archive1 - archive of NHL inclusion arguments

Contents 1 CFL 2 Arena League 3 Major sports outside North America 4 Soccer, Cricket 5 Sharks as Seals/Barons? 6 Major League Baseball 7 Let's make it US only

[edit] CFL

The CFL section should be greatly trimmed; much of it doesn't belong. Specifically:

The CFL is considered a major sport in Canada, being second only to the NHL.

• Quite likely, although I think the CFL is not very far ahead of the NFL or MLB in Canada, especially in Toronto. Can you find a source for the claim?

Proponents of the CFL being a major league point out that...

• Don't you mean "being considered a major league in Canada?" No one would ever consider the CFL to be "major" in the U.S.

the NFL has no teams in Canada (although in the NFL's defense this is largely due to government intervention in order to retain the distinctly Canadian game as part of Canadian culture).

• While it's true that the Canadian government did keep the WFL out in the 70s, the lack of an NFL team in Toronto now is undoubtedly because there are better markets in the U.S., not because of government intervention. I doubt the government would try to keep the NFL out nowadays, but putting a team in Toronto wouldn't make financial sense for the league.

A good compromise position, held by many notable Canadian and American football players and fans, is to use the term gridiron football to include both the Canadian and American games, and define gridiron football as one of the four major sports, with the NFL and CFL its leading major leagues.

• I have never heard of this.

I would rewrite the whole section as follows: "Canadian Football League - Canadian football, with its own distinctive rules and history, rivals MLB, the NFL and NASCAR in popularity in Canada and may be the second-most-popular sport there behind ice hockey. However, its status as a "major league," even in Canada, is questionable, as most of its players are those not good enough to play in the NFL, and salaries are comparable to the Arena Football League."

With respect to your statement "as most of its players are those not good enough to play in the NFL." I strongly disagree. CFL players are not "inferior" to NFL players, it is a slightly different game see Comparison_of_Canadian_and_American_football - however, I do agree that the CFL is a Canadian game, and should not be listed in an US-centric article. Tawker 05:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I won't go ahead and change it now unless no one responds to this comment. Mwalcoff 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the whole page should be split into 2 different pages: "US major professional sports leagues" and "Canadian major professional sports leagues". This might avoid any edit wars or whatnot. Obviously, the 2 countries have 2 entirely different definitions as to what constitutes a "major" league. (I am American, BTW.)--CrazyTalk 19:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The first blurb is taken from Canadian football. The gridiron compromise is actually fairly common where I am from. On a related note, years ago the NCAA have tried to put a BCS game in Toronto, but was blocked (I'm not sure if it was the CIS or the government). Also recall that in the CFL's failed US expansion, virtually every US team (except Baltimore) were stocked by former NFLers and the like - and were really bad teams (Baltimore had guys that knew Canadian football well - perhaps that's why there are quite a group of Als fans in Baltimore even today). NFL stars playing in the CFL have also found out that their American skills don't translate into Canadian success (Lawrence Phillips is a good example). I can't see any valid claim as to the CFL players as being "not good enough to play" in the NFL (which IMO is an inherently POV statement). kelvSYC 06:22:33, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

1. If we look at this 2002-03 poll of Canadian adults, we can see that the CFL ranks eighth among favourite sports to watch in Canada. If we look just at men (who are more likely to be sports fans), the CFL still is tied for fifth, behind pro and amateur hockey, the NFL and even soccer. (I'm surprised too.)
2. I live in Kitchener-Waterloo, but the only people I know who say "gridiron football" are Brits.
3. Actually, it's the city of Toronto that wants to host a bowl game, and it's the NCAA that has rejected the idea [1].
4. I'd bet that 99% of CFL players would rather be playing in the NFL and making NFL money. Many CFL stars are NFL castoffs or rejects. Ricky Ray was cut by the Jets. Henry Burris threw 51 passes in his NFL career. Casey Printers was undrafted and unsigned out of college. This is not to knock on the CFL or say that its players lack talent. But that the level of talent in the NFL is higher than that of the CFL is so self-evident, it should not be considered controversial.
5. Lawrence Phillips was hardly an NFL star. He played 35 games and ran for a measly 3.4-yard average per carry. In the CFL, in contrast, his stats weren't bad, but he was kicked off the team for behaviorial reasons. Mwalcoff 20:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't argue with the pay difference - many where I'm from consider Canadian footballers to be grossly underpaid (the salary cap that de facto does not exist...). Then can we say that the rise of the NFL in the media prompted the fall of the CFL in the talent department? After all, there was a time when top football managers both sides of the border wanted a crack at the best stars on both sides of the border. kelvSYC 02:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That was the 1970s, where the CFL and NFL were equally popular among Canadians.

For the record, the CFL is still more popular than the NFL in Canada. [2]

[edit] Arena League

I would venture that the Arena Football League should be mentioned on this page, but in a slightly less respected capacity than that of the NHL's. While hockey has history on it's side in argument of proponents, the AFL or 'Arenaball' has the moderate success that is quite impressive of an organization that is only 20 years old.

Also, at 20 years old, it is the 2nd-longest running professional football league in the United States. Unlike other attempts that competed against the NFL in varying ways and fizzled quickly, the AFL built slowly and steadily and even partnered with the NFL at certain points to become the respectable entity that it is today. There's a network television contract, several nationwide sponsorship deals, and even an EA Sports video game. With television ratings comparable or better than the NHL's, ratings better than those of MLS or the WNBA's, and attendence figures at just as high a stature, it's hard to deny that the Arena League has found a place in the sporting culture.

Finally, there is the on-field argument to be made. It is the highest league at it's own sport, as the game itself requires an only somewhat similar athlete to the NFL's and the AFL does run a developmental minor league, arenafootball2.

ESPN itself has even labeled it the "Fifth Major" in it's various mediums. Why not do so here, even if to a certain extent?

• Not that I'm disagreeing with you in anyway, but everyone knows the Arena Football game is so no one else could make officially licensed football. There was a Kurt Warner game made in who knows when, and then all of a sudden, when EA gets exclusive NFL, they also get exclusive College Football, and now they want to make an Arena game?--Attitude2000 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with the Arena Football comment. It's a sport in its own right and, as mentioned before, it's been labeled the Fifth Major by ESPN, and probably exceeds the NHL slightly in actual popularity.

The only major problem with the sport is that people keep looking at it in the context of the NFL.

"There's no defense!"

"Why are the scores so high?"

"I want to see some running!"

It's a different sport derived off of American football. --TopGear 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major sports outside North America

I would like to edit this bit slightly, just to mention that as of 2005 the Bundesliga of Germany is not as strong as others in Europe, but that there has been various periods in European football history when it has been the strongest, or at least in the top three, even in the last 10-15 years it has had more representation in European finals than England. I would also like to omit the mention that the Eredivisie of the Netherlands is considered a major league as it is quite widely considered to be a small league totally dominated by three big clubs, who although being very successful in the past are currently struggling against losing their most talented players to the major leagues. In addition to that I would like to say that the Ligue 1 of France is perhaps emerging (as French football a whole has done over the past few years) as a major force rather than as always being one, and that the French league has traditionally been seen as weaker and their teams fairing worse in European competition than those of leagues like the Netherlands, Scotland and Portugal for example.

It's all quite subjective really - what makes a stronger league? One with a handful of clubs who regularly win European competitions, such as Russia, Portugal or Netherlands, but a big drop off to the quality outside of those clubs? Or one with a wider range of clubs who can compete accross Europe but fewer 'big clubs' such as France? I wouldn't like to say. The current article I think reflects reality failry well by using the G14 as a measure. --Robdurbar 10:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We could link to this page which has a chart of UEFA league rankings over time. --Robdurbar 10:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(I am new. Who is the author of the first paragraph in this section? Did Robdurbar delete that info at 10:32 or 10:41, 26 May 2006? I know from the documentation that I might distinguish myself by indenting every paragraph with two colons, one more than anyone else has used in this section, but I can't believe that is right. So this long parenthetical remark distinguishes me. Blech.)

By the way, the next section is right on. Even now, after I don't know how much editing, the article needs more in order to pass muster as major rather than USA major.

How historical should the article should be? The USA section covers a lot of years but it isn't very historical. For ice hockey alone it discusses the prehistory of the current major league and mentions the major status of those competitors; otherwise it is silent on majority.

On the other hand, how much should the article reflect current events? Where there are multiple major leagues, they will differ in strength and those differences will vary over time. Analysis of playing strength or economic strength is possible at the season level, if not shorter, but leagues should not be called "major" season-by-season if playing strength and/or economic strength is touchstone.

By the way, this is the entire first paragraph of the article, and no more appears above the table fo contents:

The major professional sports leagues are those professional sports leagues with the largest fan bases and television audiences (and therefore, the largest revenues and player salaries).

Is it serious, focusing entirely on economic criteria? This discussion is full of playing strength and the article is full of formal relationships such as distinguish major and minor leagues in the USA. P64 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer, Cricket

I think that there needs to be a lot more information on the major football (soccer) leaugues around the world, because right now, the article seems to be too slanted towards US leagues. The problem is not too much info on the Big Four in the US (it is excellent), but too little information on the soccer leaugues. Information about cricket, wildly popular in certain parts of the world, should also be included. Otherwise, I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Major US sport leagues" BishopOcelot

I agree today, wondering whether it was even worse whenever this comment was new.

Is there a reference list of professional sports, at least by nation or world region, maybe by league. That is, do we know where in the world different sports are played professionally so that the concept of major professional competition is applicable?

Or is "major" rather than "professional" the primary keyword? Example. I say cricket. You say where in the world it makes sense to make major:minor distinctions about cricket play or cricket leagues. That might be a subset or a superset of where in the world cricket is played professionally. I am willing to listen, either way. P64 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharks as Seals/Barons?

I have a bit of a problem with one sentence:

However, this merger was officially dissolved in 1991, and the Seals/Barons franchise returned to the Bay Area, resuming independent operations as the San Jose Sharks.

Really? I thought that it was generally accepted that the Sharks were a completely new franchise, and had no connection to the old Seals/Barons franchise. As far as I know, the Sharks do not acknowledge the Seals' history as their own (unlike the Carolina Hurricanes do for the Hartford Whalers' history, or the Phoenix Coyotes with the Winnipeg Jets' history), and all franchise records for the Seals are not considered Sharks records. The only place I've seen this claim is on Wikipedia, and even then the Seals' article states

In many ways, the Sharks can be considered a revival of the Seals franchise.

It is not saying the Sharks are the Seals, but rather saying they could be. To me, I don't think that's enough of a reason to state that the Sharks are the former Seals franchise in this article. I think it's a bit misleading, and should be changed. NeoChaosX 19:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's murky. What actually happened is that the corporate identity of the Seals/Barons franchise never actually went away after the merger. Gund tried to move the North Stars to the Bay Area; he was refused. But, the NHL at the time was eyeing expansion anyway. What happened, in the end, was that the merger was legally dissolved, Gund sold the North Stars half, and was left with the "expansion" half. He was then able to grab 25 players from the North Stars organization and both teams were equal partners in the resulting expansion draft. So, yes, as far as the league is concerned, it is in fact a new team; it has no claim to the Seals/Barons history (nor would it want to!!) but the corporate legacy is that of the Seals.

Sort of like a company buying another, then spinning it back off a few years later under a different name. It's explained pretty well in a book by former NHL president Gil Stein 24.174.145.108 23:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ich bin sat - not! (That rhymes.) No, not satisfied. Key points

1. "the Seals/Barons franchise never actually went away after the merger." - What does this mean? I doubt that Gund cast two votes at league meetings.
2. "the merger was legally dissolved" - merger of what? What was dissolved, as far as I can tell from this discussion, was some merger of rights to players. That is an aspect of the "franchise" in a sense, but it is not the club or the franchise, closer to the team(roster).
3. "as far as the league is concerned, it is in fact a new team; it has no claim to the Seals/Barons history" - but does it have any claim or liability re the Seals/Barons history elsewhere, if not the league's concern? For example, would the state of California be concerned one way or the other whether the maybe-new club retained the papers of the California Golden Seals? P64 04:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Something new in the issue has come up; according to this message, it turns out the book that's cited for the Sharks' origins says nothing about the North Stars/Barons merger being dissolved when the team was created. With this in mind, would it be acceptable to change the language of those sections now? NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major League Baseball

Major League Baseball (30 clubs as of 2006, formally founded in 1920 though constituent leagues began cooperation in 1903).

• What was established in 1920? Was the name "Major League Baseball" used in a legal document?
• A lot of what is in this article, especially comparative account of major leagues wars, depends on treating "major league baseball" from 1920?/1903? rather than the National League from 1876 as the major league. It isn't true that major league baseball (lowercase) vanquished its rivals pretty easily where major league football struggled to fend off its recurring rival leagues, incorporating 13 rival clubs. That is true of Major League Baseball (capitalized) in contrast to the National Football League, but only because we begin the history of M.L.B. in this sense after most of the m.l.b. rivalry and accommodation was done.
• The second Louisville club in mlb was not so short-lived, 1882-1899, and the river was recently if not quite any longer the main way cross-continent. The mlb history of Richmond was indeed short and also more Southern, a real step off the beaten track.

("What was established in 1920?" is a serious question. I am not boldly resaying anything on Louisville or the South, a relevant example here, because I need to read some replies, articles, and boilerplate first. P64 02:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's make it US only

This article should deal with N. American sports only, otherwise we're just trying to force other sporting cultures into a US template. The main reason for this is that for a lot of sports national team competitions are as important as domestic leagues. eg football, and to an even greater extent Cricket and Rugby. The US model of the 'Major' league dominating the entire sport simply doesn't apply to other countries. The only exception is Australia, which is why it was added first here, but why not give Australia its own page rather than have it and then the rest of the world as an afterthought.

Much of the rest of the world bit is vague and has little to do with any sports leagues. It also seems to back up a stereotype of association football dominating everywhere apart from North America. For some reason until recently the example cases of somewhere where football doesn't dominate were Finland and Lithuania (population under 10 million) rather than India and Pakistan (population 1.3 billion). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.204.215 (talk • contribs).