Why are all the major sports dominated by one league?

[JordanIB]

NFL: AFC with all the legit conteders.

NBA: East is a joke.

MLB: Everyone viewed the winner of the AL bracket as the eventually champion.

NHL: Umm.. I don't know, it's the NHL. I know Buffalo is good this year. Don't know anything else.

---------------------------

So are there any thoughts or theories on why these leagues are so dominated by a single conference?

Is it just variance?

One thing that just came to my mind: Is it a case of everyong racing to catch the dominant front-runner? For example, in baseball you had the Yankees of the late-90s. If you were an AL team and had dreams of winning the title, you had to build your team to compete with them, and this is in some ways still true. Are we seeing the ripple effect of the Yankees dominance?

Can the same be said of the NFL (Patriots?) and NBA (I dunno...not as strong...Spurs?). If the West has been strong in hockey, then I would bring up the Red Wings/Avalanche.

There are likely major Swiss cheese holes in this "theory"...I just didn't want to ask what folks though and have nothing myself.

Discuss.

[MCS]

I would guess that it's just coincidence. I like your idea, but I bet it'll swing back soon.

I do think this is more likely to happen in MLB because there's no salary cap, and perhaps there will sometimes be more free-spending teams in one league.

[capone0]

NFL: Before 1997, the NFC dominated, and dominated a lot harder then the AFC is dominating now. It's cylical. In the NBA, the dominant teams were in the East in the 90s before that it was the Lakers in the 80s.

In the NFL it has a lot to do with the GMs and the quality of the coaching. I think it's much higher in the AFC right now.

NE: Coach B and Brady. Great draft record.
Colts: Peyton and a great draft record.
Pittsburgh: Cowher and good FA record and pretty solid draft record.
Chargers: Great Drafting lately and trading.
Bengals: Lewis + Good drafts.
Baltimore: Good Coach + Great drafting on D.

All of these teams get good late round picks and good college FA picks.

NFC:

Cowboys: Drafted well lately but before drafted like crap.
9ers: Drafted like crap for years, don't "cheat" like they used to (this as a fan).
Seahawks: Drafted well, made some FA mistakes in the past. Before the last 5 years, didn't draft or spend well.
TB: Had 1 stellar year, haven't drafted that well lately.
Giants: Drafted pretty well lately, but have made FA mistakes and coaching mistakes. Eli trade seems to be at worst them ending on the short side of the stick.

NFC hasn't drafted well lately. AFC has. AFC has the better coaching.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

there is probably something to be said for the "catch up" theory. IE AL East teams are caught in an arms race with each other, and assuming competent management, this will give them an advantage.

in the NBA, it's probably b/c the best big men play there. I'm not sure if that's variance or b/c of teams competing with each other. probably some of both.

in the NFL, it's variance.

in the NHL, it's whoevers coaches dress worse

[PokerFink]

The power tends to shift from conference to conference in each sport, just as individual teams will get better and decline over time. It's cyclical - there is no "theory" behind it. It's just variance.

[SL__72]

Does anyone else think that the DH rule gives AL teams a slight advantage?

[capone0]

NBA teams in the west have better ownership groups and better GMs.

Cuban is a great Owner. So are the Maloofs. Whoever has put the Spurs together has been absolutely brilliant. They have pulled Parker and Ginobili from the stockpiles. Phoenix was built by a brilliant GM.

The only brilliant GM I see in the East right now is Dumars. The owners aren't that good. The coaching isn't that great and hasn't been for a while other than Riley and Brown.

I guess it could be luck, but the best run franchises for the most part in the NBA have been the Western ones atleast since Jordan has left.

Lakers got Shaq. Spurs pulled Duncan, Parker and Ginobili from the draft. Kings had Webber from FA, Divac from FA, etc but their GM, Petrie did a great job. Phoenix drafted well and of course signed a little guy by the name of Nash. After a bunch of retarded moves, Dallas has drafted Dirk, drafted Howard, and made good off season moves instead of getting a bunch of overpriced crappy players such as Walker ().

Detroit built through mainly FA and trades. They haven't drafted that well other than Prince but they've made a lot of good moves. Cleveland is good mainly cause of Lebron. The Wizards basically took all of the Warriors good players.

I don't think there is a formula. I think it's luck and quality of owners and GMs which has driven certain leagues to be better.

In the ML, there is a lot more money spent in the AL. I don't know it b/c owners are trying to compete with the likes of the Yankees and Redsox but a lot of the clubs such as Toronto are spending much more then they have in the past while teams such as the Braves, Cardinals have much lower payrolls. Didn't stop the Cardinals from winning last year though.

[Dudd]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else think that the DH rule gives AL teams a slight advantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it gives them a definite advantage in head to head play since they have budgeted for a DH spot while NL teams just play their best bench player either at DH or for the worst fielder, but in terms of a team like the Cardinals winning a division with 83 wins or the NL West racing to .500 last year, since the vast majority of their games are against teams under the same rules, I don't think it makes a huge difference.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The only brilliant GM I see in the East right now is Dumars.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Triumph36]

I think in baseball the DH gives the AL a definite advantage, plus the 'arms race' in the AL East - but in all other sports it's random.

Also right now in the NHL it's without question the West who is more powerful.