MLB to regulate MiLB data and sharing

[southsider2k5]

36 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

None of these sports are remotely close to baseball. Those things you listed are all within the rules that everyone abides by. Theyre all accessible at fair market prices. 

I'm not sure what you or ss2k are arguing. Baseball has a significant parity problem that is exasperated by the inequality throughout the sport. I have no idea why any fan would want the richest ownership group to have the advantage. The richest owners will always live in one or two cities.

The green bay packers are one of the most successful organizations in the NFL and you think the NFL and MLB are similar in that regard. 

Nothing that is happening in baseball is so expensive that literally any team couldn't be doing it, if they actually wanted to do so.  No one is putting 10s of billions of dollars into regenerative AI models here, it is 6 to 7 figures we are talking about.  More money gets wasted on shitty utility players and bad relievers.

[almagest]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Those two scandals involved teams cheating internally, not cheating with another legal business entity that knowingly goes into an agreement with a team against the bylaws of the league. "Interesting in analytics" lol. 

"People fail governance all the time so I guarantee an MLB team will" is not really something I agree with, but then again you guaranteed it so this discussion rests.

Yes, no one is doing anything against the bylaws of MLB going into an under-the-table agreement for analytics because those bylaws don't exist yet, so the only examples we have are in other areas, like sign stealing. Sign stealing is ubiquitous in MLB, and there were two big scandals about it that were particularly egregious. If teams are bending MLB's rules with this then they're for sure going to try to bend them in other areas.

Also, you brought up enterprises treating governance as sacrosanct, not me. You're flat out wrong about that, and there's no reason to assume baseball teams would act any differently.

If you don't think someone with interesting data or a new way of measuring things is going to take a bunch of money to provide that info or tool to an MLB team under the table as a "trial" or whatever nonsense phrasing they invent to justify it then BOY do I have a crypto deal that's perfect for you!

 

[almagest]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

None of these sports are remotely close to baseball. Those things you listed are all within the rules that everyone abides by. Theyre all accessible at fair market prices. 

I'm not sure what you or ss2k are arguing. Baseball has a significant parity problem that is exasperated by the inequality throughout the sport. I have no idea why any fan would want the richest ownership group to have the advantage. The richest owners will always live in one or two cities.

The green bay packers are one of the most successful organizations in the NFL and you think the NFL and MLB are similar in that regard. 

They're two of the other major sport examples we have in the US, so feel free to find ones you think are more applicable.

Baseball does not have a significant parity problem compared to the other sports. Of the three sports I referenced:

• The NBA has had 13 different teams win the championship since their soft cap began in 1985 (32.5%). There are seven teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Lakers 9, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Warriors 4, Celtics 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3), which account for 82.5% of the total championships.
• The NFL has had 15 teams win the Super Bowl since the salary cap began in 1994 (48.4%). There are three teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Patriots 6, Chiefs 3, Broncos 3), which account for 38.7% of the total championships.
• MLB has had 14 different teams win the World Series since the luxury tax began in 1997 (50%). There are four teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Red Sox 4, Yankees 3, Giants 3, Dodgers 3), accounting for 46.4% of the total championships.

MLB has the the largest % of different teams win, and is in the middle of the three for 3+ championships won by a team. If anything it seems like more restrictive salary caps are harmful to parity, or at best don't make a difference.

[Lip Man 1]

39 minutes ago, almagest said:

They're two of the other major sport examples we have in the US, so feel free to find ones you think are more applicable.

Baseball does not have a significant parity problem compared to the other sports. Of the three sports I referenced:

• The NBA has had 13 different teams win the championship since their soft cap began in 1985 (32.5%). There are seven teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Lakers 9, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Warriors 4, Celtics 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3), which account for 82.5% of the total championships.
• The NFL has had 15 teams win the Super Bowl since the salary cap began in 1994 (48.4%). There are three teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Patriots 6, Chiefs 3, Broncos 3), which account for 38.7% of the total championships.
• MLB has had 14 different teams win the World Series since the luxury tax began in 1997 (50%). There are four teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Red Sox 4, Yankees 3, Giants 3, Dodgers 3), accounting for 46.4% of the total championships.

MLB has the the largest % of different teams win, and is in the middle of the three for 3+ championships won by a team. If anything it seems like more restrictive salary caps are harmful to parity, or at best don't make a difference.

There are some folks posting here who strongly think that what happened 20-30 years ago doesn't matter in today's game and that the sport has a large competitive disparity.

I personally don't think that at all. To me the problem in baseball is the commissioner and ownership of a lot of teams, not the system. 

Get rid of cheap, dumb owners and replace them with individuals who value a good organization and winning over profits. Those most harmful to the game are franchises that get revenue sharing money, millions of dollars every year and then don't do squat to improve the on-field talent.   

[WestEddy]

10 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There are some folks posting here who strongly think that what happened 20-30 years ago doesn't matter in today's game and that the sport has a large competitive disparity.

I personally don't think that at all. To me the problem in baseball is the commissioner and ownership of a lot of teams, not the system. 

Get rid of cheap, dumb owners and replace them with individuals who value a good organization and winning over profits. Those most harmful to the game are franchises that get revenue sharing money, millions of dollars every year and then don't do squat to improve the on-field talent.   

The entire nature of sports today is about making money. There are no entities who will invest $2B in a team, then lose money because they value winning over profits. And even if they do "value winning over profits", that's not going to go on for long before their business is in serious trouble. 

[almagest]

26 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

The entire nature of sports today is about making money. There are no entities who will invest $2B in a team, then lose money because they value winning over profits. And even if they do "value winning over profits", that's not going to go on for long before their business is in serious trouble. 

You can value profit, but understand that you can still build a good team and be profitable. Profit and quality are not inversely proportional. If you want to grow team revenue you basically have to be good, especially if you don't have a major market to rely on.

39 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There are some folks posting here who strongly think that what happened 20-30 years ago doesn't matter in today's game and that the sport has a large competitive disparity.

I personally don't think that at all. To me the problem in baseball is the commissioner and ownership of a lot of teams, not the system. 

Get rid of cheap, dumb owners and replace them with individuals who value a good organization and winning over profits. Those most harmful to the game are franchises that get revenue sharing money, millions of dollars every year and then don't do squat to improve the on-field talent.   

Maybe MLB needs to have stricter approval processes for team purchases, but it's going to be hard to do that, because there are only a few people in the world rich enough to afford an MLB team, and who have the desire to do so. Unfortunately you're kind of stuck with the luck of the draw as a fan.

I agree about revenue sharing. It's a terrible idea and it's pretty clear it doesn't lead to a better product.

[caulfield12]

How do you account for it being impossible for the Tigers to keep Skubal, the Pirates to keep Skenes, the Rays to keep any players over $10 million, etc.?

They need to have something like a franchise tag.

Which would be anti player movement, as well as limits or controls on international free agents 25 or older.

The owners definitely have to allow for a $100-125 million payroll floor.

In return, lesser tax penalties for higher payrolls, but forcing those top market teams to share/split more of their local broadcasting revenues.

You can’t have teams with billion dollar media deals and the bottom 10-12 teams all earning $20 million per year or less.

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, almagest said:

They're two of the other major sport examples we have in the US, so feel free to find ones you think are more applicable.

Baseball does not have a significant parity problem compared to the other sports. Of the three sports I referenced:

• The NBA has had 13 different teams win the championship since their soft cap began in 1985 (32.5%). There are seven teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Lakers 9, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Warriors 4, Celtics 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3), which account for 82.5% of the total championships.
• The NFL has had 15 teams win the Super Bowl since the salary cap began in 1994 (48.4%). There are three teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Patriots 6, Chiefs 3, Broncos 3), which account for 38.7% of the total championships.
• MLB has had 14 different teams win the World Series since the luxury tax began in 1997 (50%). There are four teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Red Sox 4, Yankees 3, Giants 3, Dodgers 3), accounting for 46.4% of the total championships.

MLB has the the largest % of different teams win, and is in the middle of the three for 3+ championships won by a team. If anything it seems like more restrictive salary caps are harmful to parity, or at best don't make a difference.

Fun with statistics.  We can cherry pick which ones to use to further our argument.  Here's another way to look at the disparity problem in MLB by looking at all the recent World Series winners:

2025:  Dodgers - BIG MARKET
2024:  Dodgers - BIG MARKET 
2023:  Texas -- BIG MARKET
2022:  Houston - BIG MARKET
2021:  Atlanta - BIG MARKET
2020:  Dodgers -- BIG MARKET
2019:  Washington - Medium Market?
2018:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2017:  Houston - BIG MARKET
2016:  Cubs - BIG MARKET
2015:  KC - Small Market
2014:  San Francisco - BIG MARKET
2013:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2012:  SF - BIG MARKET
2011:  St. Louis - Medium Market (at the time, small market now)
2010:  SF - BIG MARKET
2009:  Yankees - BIG MARKET
2008:  Philadelphia - BIG MARKET
2007:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2006:  St. Louis - Medium Market

It's almost always the same top 10 or 12 big market teams that win the World Series.  All but 4 times going back 2 decades.  You just don't see this in the other major sports.

 

Edited yesterday at 05:38 AM by 77 Hitmen

[77 Hitmen]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There are some folks posting here who strongly think that what happened 20-30 years ago doesn't matter in today's game and that the sport has a large competitive disparity.

I personally don't think that at all. To me the problem in baseball is the commissioner and ownership of a lot of teams, not the system. 

Get rid of cheap, dumb owners and replace them with individuals who value a good organization and winning over profits. Those most harmful to the game are franchises that get revenue sharing money, millions of dollars every year and then don't do squat to improve the on-field talent.   

So, by your logic, the Brewers should be sold because they can't get past the big market teams to make it to the World Series.  The Guardians should be sold, too.  In fact, using this litmus test, about half the league (all smaller market teams) should be put up for sale.  The Rays just got sold.  What if the new owners can't get past the big market teams, either?  Force them to put the team up for sale again?  The Pohlads tried to sell the Twins and ran into issues with their $400M in debt.

Two things can be true:  their are some bad owners who just don't want to compete (Reinsdorf, Nutting, Fisher) and there's a systemic competitive balance problem in the league that is only getting worse.   

[almagest]

49 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Fun with statistics.  We can cherry pick which ones to use to further our argument.  Here's another way to look at the disparity problem in MLB by looking at all the recent World Series winners:

2025:  Dodgers - BIG MARKET
2024:  Dodgers - BIG MARKET 
2023:  Texas -- BIG MARKET
2022:  Houston - BIG MARKET
2021:  Atlanta - BIG MARKET
2020:  Dodgers -- BIG MARKET
2019:  Washington - Medium Market?
2018:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2017:  Houston - BIG MARKET
2016:  Cubs - BIG MARKET
2015:  KC - Small Market
2014:  San Francisco - BIG MARKET
2013:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2012:  SF - BIG MARKET
2011:  St. Louis - Medium Market (at the time, small market now)
2010:  SF - BIG MARKET
2009:  Yankees - BIG MARKET
2008:  Philadelphia - BIG MARKET
2007:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2006:  St. Louis - Medium Market

It's almost always the same top 10 or 12 big market teams that win the World Series.  All but 4 times going back 2 decades.  You just don't see this in the other major sports.

 

Big market teams have won 13 of 20 NBA championships since 2006. Only four of them were small market teams. In the NFL, only one small market team has won (Packers in 2010). Eight won by large market teams and eleven by mid market (KC counts as a mid market for the NFL). So yes, you DO see this in other sports.

Edited yesterday at 06:18 AM by almagest

[caulfield12]

17 minutes ago, almagest said:

Big market teams have won 13 of 20 NBA championships since 2006. Only four of them were small market teams. In the NFL, only one small market team has won (Packers in 2010). Eight won by large market teams and eleven by mid market. So yes, you DO see this in other sports.

How is Kansas City in any sense not a small market franchise for football?

What is the differentiator?  

Nashville KC and Cincy would be at or near the bottom...in the 20's.  Buffalo's success would never impossible in MLB.  Ofc thru also wouldn't be opening one of the best baseball stadiums, either, with Pegula/Rich money. 

Also hard to consider CLE as mid market IMO.  They too are getting a shiny new fb stadium eventually.

37	Milwaukee	922K	PACKERS
40	Las Vegas	834K	RAIDERS
43	Jacksonville	757K	JAGUARS
50	New Orleans	664K	SAINTS
54	Buffalo, NY	613K

 

Edited yesterday at 06:25 AM by caulfield12

[almagest]

17 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

How is Kansas City in any sense not a small market franchise for football?

What is the differentiator?  

Nashville KC and Cincy would be at the bottom...

 

I'm trying to factor in popularity, revenue and neighboring captured markets (beyond just physical market size, which is why the Royals are still a small market to me), but sure. We can call them small as an example. That makes it two teams and four total championships since 2006 for small markets in the NFL. Hell, add the Saints too if you want. Three teams, five championships. Doesn't change the point.

If I go back through the MLB list and just rank them by pure market size, then the Rangers move to mid market.

Edited yesterday at 06:43 AM by almagest

[caulfield12]

50 minutes ago, almagest said:

I'm trying to factor in popularity, revenue and neighboring captured markets (beyond just physical market size, which is why the Royals are still a small market to me), but sure. We can call them small as an example. That makes it two teams and four total championships since 2006 for small markets in the NFL. Hell, add the Saints too if you want. Three teams, five championships. Doesn't change the point.

If I go back through the MLB list and just rank them by pure market size, then the Rangers move to mid market.

That's where you find Dallas-Arlington-Ft.Worth in the in-between zone of large and mid markets for baseball (#8-12)...impossible to imagine them anything but Big with a capital B for football though.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Can I just say the WestEddy/Almagest circle jerk is just hilarious to watch in every thread. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

9 hours ago, almagest said:

They're two of the other major sport examples we have in the US, so feel free to find ones you think are more applicable.

Baseball does not have a significant parity problem compared to the other sports. Of the three sports I referenced:

• The NBA has had 13 different teams win the championship since their soft cap began in 1985 (32.5%). There are seven teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Lakers 9, Bulls 6, Spurs 5, Warriors 4, Celtics 3, Pistons 3, Heat 3), which account for 82.5% of the total championships.
• The NFL has had 15 teams win the Super Bowl since the salary cap began in 1994 (48.4%). There are three teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Patriots 6, Chiefs 3, Broncos 3), which account for 38.7% of the total championships.
• MLB has had 14 different teams win the World Series since the luxury tax began in 1997 (50%). There are four teams with more than 2 championships during that time (Red Sox 4, Yankees 3, Giants 3, Dodgers 3), accounting for 46.4% of the total championships.

MLB has the the largest % of different teams win, and is in the middle of the three for 3+ championships won by a team. If anything it seems like more restrictive salary caps are harmful to parity, or at best don't make a difference.

Championships in baseball are the byproduct of a playoffs which is much-more luck centric than the NBA playoffs (for example). Division wins and playoff appearances are what drive parity in a sport like baseball.

The parity is no where near the same. The correlation between money spent and wins is significant in baseball. Therefore, baseball has less parity given that it has no salary cap and money drives wins/losses. This is very basic math. Using World Series wins as the indication of parity, in a sport with a 162 game regular season, is obviously not the way to asses parity. 

Edited yesterday at 12:39 PM by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

7 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Fun with statistics.  We can cherry pick which ones to use to further our argument.  Here's another way to look at the disparity problem in MLB by looking at all the recent World Series winners:

2025:  Dodgers - BIG MARKET
2024:  Dodgers - BIG MARKET 
2023:  Texas -- BIG MARKET
2022:  Houston - BIG MARKET
2021:  Atlanta - BIG MARKET
2020:  Dodgers -- BIG MARKET
2019:  Washington - Medium Market?
2018:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2017:  Houston - BIG MARKET
2016:  Cubs - BIG MARKET
2015:  KC - Small Market
2014:  San Francisco - BIG MARKET
2013:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2012:  SF - BIG MARKET
2011:  St. Louis - Medium Market (at the time, small market now)
2010:  SF - BIG MARKET
2009:  Yankees - BIG MARKET
2008:  Philadelphia - BIG MARKET
2007:  Boston - BIG MARKET
2006:  St. Louis - Medium Market

It's almost always the same top 10 or 12 big market teams that win the World Series.  All but 4 times going back 2 decades.  You just don't see this in the other major sports.

 

Of course you don't, meanwhile teams like the Bucks and OKC!! in the NBA can win titles and retain all their talent, and teams like the Packers and KC have dynasty like runs in the NFL. 

People like almagast and Westeddy just come into these threads to disagree with me at length, regardless of the logic put in front of them. It's an illness. 

Edited yesterday at 12:42 PM by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 hours ago, almagest said:

I'm trying to factor in popularity, revenue and neighboring captured markets (beyond just physical market size, which is why the Royals are still a small market to me), but sure. We can call them small as an example. That makes it two teams and four total championships since 2006 for small markets in the NFL. Hell, add the Saints too if you want. Three teams, five championships. Doesn't change the point.

If I go back through the MLB list and just rank them by pure market size, then the Rangers move to mid market.

Royals are small market but Chiefs are big market. LOL, the mental hoops you will go through to continue one of your long winded arguments is good for a laugh in the morning for sure!

LIP, every sport has bad owners. You're never going to get rid of all bad owners. Difference is baseball stacks the deck against those teams much more.

8 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

There are some folks posting here who strongly think that what happened 20-30 years ago doesn't matter in today's game and that the sport has a large competitive disparity.

I personally don't think that at all. To me the problem in baseball is the commissioner and ownership of a lot of teams, not the system. 

Get rid of cheap, dumb owners and replace them with individuals who value a good organization and winning over profits. Those most harmful to the game are franchises that get revenue sharing money, millions of dollars every year and then don't do squat to improve the on-field talent.   

Edited yesterday at 12:45 PM by Look at Ray Ray Run

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

10 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Nothing that is happening in baseball is so expensive that literally any team couldn't be doing it, if they actually wanted to do so.  No one is putting 10s of billions of dollars into regenerative AI models here, it is 6 to 7 figures we are talking about.  More money gets wasted on shitty utility players and bad relievers.

R&D is always more expensive than the products themselves. It's an investment in staff and people as well. While the costs are minimal compared to a players salary, as I've said before, they're also costs that require an investment in innovation which is much more affordable to teams with more funds. 

Additionally, a huge issue with not having approved data and vendors is that a team could technically pay a provider or person to ONLY provide services/data/etc to their team which would be another big issue.

I never said this area is where teams gain the biggest edge, but it's another area where teams with more resources come out on top exasperating the inequality issue in baseball. 

[almagest]

3 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Royals are small market but Chiefs are big market. LOL, the mental hoops you will go through to continue one of your long winded arguments is good for a laugh in the morning for sure!

I said MID market, not large. Go look at their revenue. Right in the bottom middle of NFL teams. You are just wrong if you think the Royals and Chiefs have the same reach and revenue % compared to the rest of their leagues. 

Saints I was wrong. They're at the bottom of revenue too. Packers are also mid market.

Edited 22 hours ago by almagest

[almagest]

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Of course you don't, meanwhile teams like the Bucks and OKC!! in the NBA can win titles and retain all their talent, and teams like the Packers and KC have dynasty like runs in the NFL. 

People like almagast and Westeddy just come into these threads to disagree with me at length, regardless of the logic put in front of them. It's an illness. 

The Packers haven't been a dynasty since the 60s. Them consistently having a hall of fame quarterback and being a well coached and well run organization since the early 90s has nothing to do with the salary cap. Even with these advantages they still only have two championships in 30 years and they haven't won in 15 years.

KC has a hall of fame coach and a great QB. There's no salary cap for coaches, so anyone could have hired Andy Reid at any time, and no star QB has ever been poached in the history of the NFL because of the ridiculous free agency rules until the 90s. Even since then you haven't seen it because teams know the value of a franchise QB.

"People who disagree with me regularly have a disease" is certainly a take. I'll keep it respectful.

[almagest]

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Championships in baseball are the byproduct of a playoffs which is much-more luck centric than the NBA playoffs (for example). Division wins and playoff appearances are what drive parity in a sport like baseball.

The parity is no where near the same. The correlation between money spent and wins is significant in baseball. Therefore, baseball has less parity given that it has no salary cap and money drives wins/losses. This is very basic math. Using World Series wins as the indication of parity, in a sport with a 162 game regular season, is obviously not the way to asses parity. 

Salary spend ABSOLUTELY correlates to wins in MLB. I'm not arguing against that. It does in the NBA as well. The NFL always had rough spending parity + coaching matters SO MUCH in football, so it's hard to say the cap changed much there. Some MLB teams (Brewers, Rays) buck that trend, but it's really hard. The playoffs are the equalizer there, as you pointed out, which is why I used the WS champ comparison.

You're also not changing the landscape of the best regular season teams in MLB by implementing a salary cap. The cap is going to come in at the top of the current team salary spend. They're not going to make the top 5-10 teams shed a ton of salary from guaranteed contracts. So you'll still have the exact same situation you have now, and even if the cap never goes up you're still going to have the same teams at the top. Smart teams will also figure out how to skirt the rules and continue to sign the players they want even if they're at the top of the cap. If you raise the floor too then maybe you'll see some change, but you'd have to make it pretty tight to make a difference, and there aren't enough good players to go around to change much here. You're also still competing against existing market size and team revenue - you're not going to force the Pirates or A's or White Sox to spend to a point they can't afford. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

K

[77 Hitmen]

10 hours ago, almagest said:

Big market teams have won 13 of 20 NBA championships since 2006. Only four of them were small market teams. In the NFL, only one small market team has won (Packers in 2010). Eight won by large market teams and eleven by mid market (KC counts as a mid market for the NFL). So yes, you DO see this in other sports.

I disagree with this.  Over the last 20 Super Bowl champs, here are the small market winners:

Green Bay, Kansas City (x3), Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh.   That's 7 times in 20 seasons.   Plus 3 arguably "middle market" SB champs:  Baltimore, Seattle, Denver.  That's half the SB titles in the last 20 years that weren't in a top 12 market vs. only 4 out of 20 in MLB.  

If Kansas City and Tampa Bay are small markets in MLB, then they're small markets in other sports too.   Green Bay/Milwaukee, too.

Edited 21 hours ago by 77 Hitmen

[almagest]

2 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I disagree with this.  Over the last 20 Super Bowl champs, here are the small market winners:

Green Bay, Kansas City (x3), Tampa Bay, New Orleans, Pittsburgh.   That's 7 times in 20 seasons.   Plus 3 arguably "middle market" SB champs:  Baltimore, Seattle, Denver.  That's half the SB titles in the last 20 years that weren't in a top 12 market vs. only 4 out of 20 in MLB.  

If Kansas City and Tampa Bay are small markets in MLB, then they're small markets in other sports too.   Green Bay/Milwaukee, too.

The markets are different in the NFL. You can't 1:1 compare them. Look at revenue by team for both leagues and compare where each team is ranked.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

15 minutes ago, almagest said:

The markets are different in the NFL. You can't 1:1 compare them. Look at revenue by team for both leagues and compare where each team is ranked.

The size of a market and it's influence doesn't change based on the sport. 

The NFL has significant revenue sharing. The MLB does not. The Dodgers make 3 times as much revenue as the A's. Meanwhile, the Cowboys are only making twice as much in revenue than the last ranked NFL team. The Chiefs were 18th in revenue during a dynasty run so not sure what you're pointing too. Again though, just you arguing argue. Didn't you say you don't even follow the NFL/NBA anymore? 

Edited 21 hours ago by Look at Ray Ray Run