Contraction

While it is nice to see many cities have professional sports franchises, the true sports fan in me wants to see some of them go away.  It's not that I dislike the teams or the players or the cities, I want them to go away for the benefit of the game.  If some sports were to be contracted by one or two teams, it would make the sport better.  Sure, it would be bad for some of the fringe players because they would need to find a new occupation, but for a fan, it would make the sport more enjoyable.  With less teams, the talent pool rises.  It's addition by subtraction. 

Let's look at basketball.  I dislike basketball to begin with.  It is very, very boring.  With the exception of the college basketball NIT and national tournament, I rarely find myself settling in to watch a game.  This year, the Charlotte Bobcats have a record of 7-56.  The season winning percentage is .111, which is close to the worst winning percentage in NBA history.  They have lost twenty straight games.  Most sports analysts are saying that they have tanked the season just to get the best chance at the first pick (which the NBA has this weird lottery system set up for the top ten picks so there is no guarantee that they will get the first pick).  There is no point to having the Charlotte Bobcats in the league.  That is fifteen players that would be vying for spots on other rosters, essentially fifteen players around the league would be without a job if the Bobcats didn't exist.  This isn't the only season where the Bobcats have been irrelevant.  They have been around since 2004 and have made the playoffs just once.  So, if you take them away and contract one more team, let's say the Washington Wizards (just because this year they have the second worst record), then you have thirty players trying to make it on the remaining teams.  Not all those players are going to make it or some of them will and the bench players on the other teams will not be playing.  It makes the sport better by having less teams.

The NHL is a little different, but the theory is the same.  Take away two teams, not because of the quality of the players, but because of where the teams are.  Contract two teams and the quality of play gets even better than it is now.  If it is all about making money as a franchise, can you honestly tell me it was a good idea to create a professional team in Atlanta, GA?  I don't think so, and that is why they moved to Winnipeg.  And I know that the Phoenix Coyotes are doing well right and have made the playoffs for several seasons, but when I think of hockey my mind doesn't go to Arizona.  Or Florida for that matter.  And Florida has two teams!  How can America's penis have two teams?  

You cannot go around taking two teams away from every league, that just wouldn't be fair.  But what about the roster size?  Looking at an NFL roster, there are sixty two players.  Do you think that teams need a 'third down back'?  One guy getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for just a handful of plays each game.  Not worth it.  Cut him!  Just recently, the commissioner of the NFL was in Minneapolis because the state government is debating on whether or not to shell out the money for a new stadium.  He doesn't care about the Vikings' new stadium.  He cares about the team making him and his league money. 

While it may suck for these players or organizations to deal with contraction, for the fans of the sport it would beneficial.  From time to time, a game will be on and it will just be a blow out and those happen.  A game later, those exact same teams could go into over time and make an exciting game of it.  However, if there were less teams and better players on those teams, wouldn't the games be more enjoyable to watch on a constant basis?