Is there any conceivable advantage that you would consider unfair?
Each team has an equal chance to pick first. Plus, that advantage is somewhat amortized by going last next round.
I do prefer the current system because it keeps competition tight, but you asked for a fairer system, not a better system.
That seems like an arbitrary distinction.
It wouldn’t be for the superbowl winners who likely won’t roll into last place when drawing lots. Or even if they do roll last, they have a better pick in round 2
You haven’t explained how the way the NFL does it is any less fair than your method.
I think I’m going to have to drop randomizing as being more fair than giving it to losing teams.
I still think the drafting order reversing each round would make it more fair, since it would make the best drafting position having less of an advantage over the worst position.
What is unfair about that advantage?
Because it gives an advantage not based on the skill of the team, in fact it gives advantages to the antithesis of that. It makes for better competition, but I’m not sure how you maintain that giving teams an equal shot isn’t more fair than the league passing out draft picks to engineer parity. Fairness is about equality of opportunity, giving draft picks to losing teams is about equality of results.
If I trade and draft smart enough to have a better football team than someone, then why should I be punished? I agree with revenue sharing because the league has looked at the Yankees, and decided that it doesn’t want to see wealth as a legitimate path to success. That’s fine with me. However, giving teams a boost just because they are losing is just a cudgel that doesn’t care if one team is better for legitimate reasons or not.
Bringing this back to the OP, I think making Danica put in extra weights is somewhat unfair to her. It is saying “because your biology is better suited to racing, you have to use a worse vehicle.” It would be like making Shaq shoot at a higher hoop because he is taller.
Or like making racehorses carry extra weight.
Erm…
Oh, they do that? I didn’t know. Why are jockeys all so small then? Or are you referring to the jockies themselves as the extra weight - and if so what’s your point? It’s not like they force the faster horses to carry the heavier jockeys.
I guess at the end of the day, racing leagues have to decide whether they want to see being lighter as being a legitimate advantage. Lots of other sports have body size as a legitimate advantage, but it isn’t as easy to handicap a big offensive linesman as just adding weights to a car. So racing is in the almost unique position to choose whether body size should count.
But you haven’t explained why that advantage is unfair.
That’s a key difference, though. There is no “biology” of racing. That’s my whole friggin’ point. Machines do the work, not biology. Giving a biological advantage to a machine would be silly.
Yes they do, as was covered fairly extensively earlier in this same thread. I believe (but cannot cite) that the reason they are so small is because there is a cap on the weight penalty, so every pound you weigh over the cap is an extra pound your horse has to carry that the others don’t.
Note that while car racing makes a nice distinction between mechanical and biology, in horse racing everything is biological. So while the “mechanical” distinction kinda falls apart there, it does highlight the meat of the issue. A jockey is not a natural part of a horse, just like a driver is not a natural part of a car. The weights that the horses and cars – the real competitors – have to carry need to be equalized in order to have a fair race.
Maybe. Nothing that I can think of offhand. It’s the nature of sport that some people will have advantages. I don’t see the need to adjust for them unless competitive balance gets thrown way out of whack (which clearly wasn’t the case in Indy racing).
Is the Yankees market advantage unfair? Why?
If you don’t believe that advantages can be unfair, then you are the worst type of pedantic douchebag to drag this debate on so long. It’s dishonest to argue that an advantage isn’t unfair if you don’t think any advantage can be unfair.
The convincing argument you seem unable to grasp is that weight advantages are unfair because the racing community says they are. Since they know more about racing than you do, you should concede the point instead of carrying on about an esoteric philosophical position that very few (if any) people share.
Yes, of course it is, because it prevents a level playing field.
You may wanna look up the word “maybe”.
But as far as Indy and the weight issue goes, a natural physical advantage seems a long way from unfair.
Look up “convincing” while you’re at it.
You may wanna go fuck yourself.