Talk:Promotion and relegation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is worth noting that relegation does exist in a limited sense in some college sports in North America. The Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association (EIVA) -- www.eiva.cc -- does this. The Tait division (highest level) last place team gets relegated and the top team of the Sweeney and Hay Divisions (of equal standing) gets promoted.

• Additionally, I've seen a quasi-promotion and relegation (albeit extremely limited) system at the high school level. In suburban Detroit, the three largest conferences (Oakland Activities, MEGA and Macomb Area conferences) will realign divisions every few years based on both enrollment and success, as does the OK Conference in western Michigan, to better ensure competitive balance. I'm sure the same thing happens elsewhere in America.24.174.145.108 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Explanation of reasons for disparity 2 "Most" sports leagues? 3 article Structure and Scope 4 what is needed? more FA history

[edit] Explanation of reasons for disparity

The explanation of the reasons why North America doesn't have promotions and relegations seems self-contradictory. It initially says that it's mostly due to "geographic disparities," but then goes on to provide an explanation having to do with the differing development of baseball and English football in the latter half of the 19th century, which doesn't mention geography at all. Rather, the idea seems to be that in the US, there was no national governing body, so owners got to form a cartel, while in England, the governing body remained strong, and was able to gain support for its elite league by using promotion and relegation. (And I'm not sure why geography works, anyway - Brazil is huge, and has promotion and relegation. Plus, if you look at baseball up to 1950 or so, baseball teams were only located in the northeastern quarter of the United States, with Washington the southernmost location and St. Louis the westernmost.) At any rate, if we want to say it has to do with geography, this ought to be explained. john k 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Non-relegation systems section got far too long. It should state that such systems exist, name a few, and give perhaps a couple of reasons for it to be that way. Historical comparisons not only looks like an original research, is completelly out of place in here and belongs perhaps to Sports in the United States. Mariano(t/c) 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Historical discussion is perfectly appropriate if it is not original research - that is to say, if it has been written about outside wikipedia. And, I think, this is exactly the article which should try to discuss the issue of why some places have promotion and relegation and others don't. john k 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, it is documented in several sources. It would take a bit of work to clean up and cite. I'm wondering if the whole thing wouldn't be more appropriate in the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players (NA) article. Also, geography does come into play - the National Association was an open shop - clubs simply paid a small fee to join and play a minimum number of games against league competition, without any limit on outside play. So, a team from, say, New York, would fall behind in the standings. Rather than travel all the way to Chicago (a huge distance back in those days), they would simply concede the pennant race, not make the long trip to Chicago but instead schedule games against close-by teams not in the NA. Needless to say, this was bad for business. The National League was formed in 1876 by owners (who by this time had seized all the business power in professional baseball) who for the sake of business set up a much stronger structure. To make long road trips more economical, there were initially four teams along the eastern seaboard and four teams further west.24.174.145.108 05:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

play locally rather than travel - this tale of 1876 may be true but I doubt it. Has anyone researched it - the local games played in New York(ballpark in Brooklyn) and Philadelphia rather than travel? We know that they didn't play a string of games against each other; indeed, neither of those two home and home series was played to its championship season quota (five decisions).

I suspect that after fifteen years at the center of the competitive baseball, measured by number or strength of teams, sudden on-field weakness had eroded the market for local games. And I wonder whether the Mutual and Athletic players received their final paychecks. (Note to descendants of club officers: the devil made me write that.) --P64 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

" ... North America, where teams are not relegated, owing to the lack of comprehensive governing bodies covering all playing levels in all four major North American professional team sports." There is no evidence presented to support this conclusion. Occam's razor might suggest some different reason: the economic model favored by the financial interests in American professional sport. Simply, tradition. In fact, there are second-division leagues under the same overall governing bodies in some of the major American Sports, yet there is no relegation system.

I see no support, in this article or elsewhere, for the claim (which I have removed from the article for lack of citations) that lack of an overall governing body for sports in North America is the reason for the lack of a relegation system. If there is a causal relationship there, I believe it runs the other way around: There is no need for an overall governing body for sports in North America because a relegation and promotion system is not desirable in North America. North America consists of three very large countries with widely dispersed populations, as opposed to Europe, which consists of many small countries with dense populations. A relegation and promotion system in North America would leave many people without a top-level team anywhere near them geographically. In Europe, if your favored team is relegated, at the very least it's not THAT far to another top-league team. I think that, brimming under the surface here, is an assumption that one system is inherently better than the other. That is not the case. It appears likely that North America has the best system for its geography and demographics, and Europe has the best system for its geography and demographics. If anyone has evidence that there is another cause for the difference, please provide citation. I note the comment that Brazil has promotion and relegation, and that it is a large country, which I concede. But in Brazil the national sport is association football, so it's unsurprising that its system, regardless of geography, is influenced by football norms. Formal play of baseball took root in the United States at almost exactly the same time that formal play of football took root in England, so it is unsurprising that each developed according to its own tendencies, taking into account both the natures of the respective games and the geographies of the respective nations. Simply put, most Americans who are not association football fans have never heard of the idea of promotion and relegation at all, and the absence of such a system can be put down not to a nefarious plan to avoid it but the lack of any good reason to have it. Ultimately, however, this is an encyclopedia, and there is no need to provide a historical reason for a subjective difference between two equally valid systems unless such a historical explanation can be clearly substantiated. Without more evidence, I think it would be enough to drastically shorten up the "differences" section of this article to merely describe the differences between the systems rather than speculate about why some people like vanilla better than chocolate. CoramVobis 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote for emphasis. With ellipses I have abstracted from the interpretation that the difference is a matter of taste, so the quotation may be unfriendly. But this seems to me the big point for Wikipedia. How widely to people endorse it? --P64 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, however, this is an encyclopedia, and there is no need to provide a historical reason ... unless such a historical explanation can be clearly substantiated. Without more evidence, I think it would be enough to drastically shorten up the "differences" section of this article to merely describe the differences ..." --CoramVobis

(I have twice highlighted "Brazil" for readability. P64)

About Brazil: precisely because of the country's huge size, there was no national football championship until the 1960s, and no official championship until 1971. Not all seasons of the Brazilian championship had promotion and relegation, and in some that did have the rule, it was not used (it's a really, really long story). And you can even argue that there was no really national championship until Copa do Brasil was created in 1991 (it's another rather long story). Copa do Brasil has no promotion and relegation rule (as far as I know, no cup competition does). So Brazil can't be compared to the US or Europe. Moving from football to brazil's second most popular sport, there is no promotion and relegation in either the men's and women's leagues, because there is no second division. But the US format isn't followed either - the concept of franchises is completely foreign here, and I had never heard of it until very recently. Teams are organized by social activities clubs and sponsored by a local, national or some multinational businesses(for the big teams - Minas Tênis Clube women's team is sponsored by Fiat, and Unilever had its own team - Rexona - until a couple years ago). The same system is followed, as far as I know, for most other sports, such as basketball. So there is actually a third system unrelated to two discussed in the article. It's possible that there are still more variations for sports in other countries.--Macgreco 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Most" sports leagues?

I question the first sentence of this article, which says that most of the world's sports leagues, with the exception of North American pro leagues, use P&R. For one, it's not just pro leagues that lack P&R in North America; it's almost all leagues at all levels. Secondly, considering the size and wealth of the United States, there might be as many sports leagues in the U.S. as there are in Europe. Finally, as discussed at professional sports league organization, not all leagues outside of North America have P&R. -- Mwalcoff 01:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article Structure and Scope

Overnight I have re-sectioned and rephrased the entire article. And improved the explanation or argument by introducing some new material. None of this makes it more wikipedic. (For example, all but the first clause, nine words, of this long sentence is original to me overnight: The NL's dominance of baseball was challenged several times but only by entire leagues, after its first few years; five new leagues after 1882 all tried with eight clubs, the established norm, a prohibitively high threshold for a new venture. There isn't much peer-reviewed historical writing on baseball and I am not in a position myself where I must publish this or perish.)

I agree, the article sprawls.
At the same time, I agree with its insight(?) that "Promotion and relegation" should not wait for this sort of historical account to grow within articles on baseball's NApbbp and NLpbbc. The open question, to me, is where historical accounts fit in the set of articles that now includes at least {Professional sports league organization, Major professional sports league, Promotion and relegation}.

I agree, it presents original research.
--or unresearched conventional wisdom, in some combination, who can say? While rephrasing the newly-distinct baseball section, I have not put it in the past tense, which would obscure its theorizing nature. (The NL baseball system "would permit the owners ... and give them ... those would guarantee ...") --P64 17:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is needed? more FA history

Beside documentation, the article needs more on the developmjent of the system within the FA. (maybe supported by other promotion/relegation examples but there seems to be 'pedian consensus that the FA is crucial) In other words, this article doesn't need less history, it needs more history with shift of spotlight on P&R rather than the supposed North American alternative.

For example, this is woefully short on details regarding annual election of lowest members vs automatic relegation. (In rephrasing thoroughly, I had to guess the meaning of the final paragraph.) Annual election of n lowest members is a version of annual election, specified by designating that the N-n highest members have a votes. That isn't promotion and relegation system, so the historical part of this article needs more, probably needs more both on the election era and on the transition. Since this is straight history of English football, which remains a major sport today, I presume that numerous authors have covered it.

On the period prior to football league, the basic criteria for membership and for FA Cup participation should be noted. For example, was it necessary to constitute a club(?) formally? Had Parliament defined clubs throughout its jurisdiction? --P64 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree; the article is on promotion and relegation in general, not only in the UK. Such content should be place in the FA article, or a new subarticle, not here. It is already too biased as it is. The hole non relegation systems section is as long as the rest of the article, and the part on USA history seams off-topic to me. Mariano(t/c) 07:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)