the value of your sports dollar

C.R.E.A.M.

As the Lakers try desperately to even get into the playoffs this year, Jerry Buss must be spinning in his grave, if he's even in it yet. You would think with all the superstars and huge names on their team that winning would be a given, but time again we see that just because you pay huge amounts of money victory isn't assured. That got me thinking about money in sports and just how much of an effect it has. If money was the be all end all the Lakers would be champions every single year, so would the Yankees. Anyway, I looked up some stuff and made a post about it.




You can't really look at all the major sports in this country and make a blanket statement about how they spend money because of different salary caps and the popularity of said sport. For instance the "worst" NFL team, the Jaguars, still paid more money than the NBA team with the deepest pockets, the Lakers. Of course, an NFL team has way more people on its roster but it's still an interesting thing to note. When you mention how many more people are on an NFL team than an NBA team and notice that the difference in dollars is only 4 million, than relativity the Lakers pay tons more per player. My simple and most likely wrong math shows that averaged out the Jags pay roughly 2 million per player while the Lakers pay 6 million. The more you know!

Needs more Blaine.

To get a look at how much bang for your buck you get in the NFL let's look at the top 10 NFL teams by salary: (source)

1.) Detroit Lions - $118,300,000
2.) Houston Texans - $118,300,000
3.) Atlanta Falcons - $117,200,000
4.) San Francisco 49ers - $117,100,000
5.) New York Giants - $117,000,000
6.) Miami Dolphins - $116,600,000
7.) St. Louis Rams - $116,600,000
8.) San Diego Chargers - $116,500,000
9.) Pittsburgh Steelers - $116,100,000
10.) Baltimore Ravens - $115,300,000

The first thing you should notice is only four of those teams even made the playoffs. That's less than half, because four is less than five... So, being a big spender in the NFL doesn't even guarantee you a playoff spot. Of course I'm simply going by salary here, not factoring in things like injury to make this point. That's probably a big deal.

A big part of that salary is spent keeping Suh out of prison.

Granted, two of those four teams would go on to play in the Superbowl so money is definitely a factor. It's also interesting to note that the two teams who spent the least money were also the worst teams in the NFL, the Jags and Chiefs. 

Like I said, there are a huge number of factors to take into account when you look at how successful a team is and money is just one of them. 

Let's look at the NBA: (source)

1.) Los Angeles Lakers - $87,392,955 

2.) Phoenix Suns - $79,943,742

3.) Boston Celtics - $78,714,199 

4.) Dallas Mavericks - $76,334,980 

5.) Miami Heat - $76,247,648 

6.) San Antonio Spurs - $73,431,894 

7.) Detroit Pistons - $70,631,657 

8.) Atlanta Hawks - $70,628,079 

9.) Memphis Grizzlies - $70,593,009 

10.) Chicago Bulls - $68,904,547

These numbers are based on last years figures since the NBA season is ongoing. 

Interestingly, of those teams 7 ended up making the playoffs. So, could you say that your sports dollar goes a lot further in the NBA? Honestly, I'm not really sure since there's so much to factor in. On first look you could certainly say that. But, how does the much longer season in the NBA factor in? Or what about the fact that one player can make a much bigger impact on a team in the NBA than in the NFL. Like I mentioned before you must be really careful in making blanket statements across the different sports.

On the other hand, the bottom line we're looking at is wins. That's why players and teams play, to win. If we're just looking at in that respect than it seems like money does go a lot further in the NBA.

If you have a Kobe, a Derrick Rose, or a Lebron you're going to pay him a lot more than some guy I've never heard of which makes something like the fact that the Suns are second highest salaried team (this was before the Steve Nash trade) really stick out. Besides Nash where is all that money going to and why didn't it show up on the court?

That brings me back to my original point. If money is the be all end all why didn't the Suns compete in the West against the Lakers. Why didn't they even make the playoffs. I looked at their injury report for that year and nothing stuck out to me. Same goes for the Pistons.

Next, let's look at baseball: (source)

1.)New York Yankees - $197,962,289
2.) Philadelphia Phillies - $174,538,938
3.) Boston Red Sox - $173,186,617
4.) Los Angeles Angels - $154,485,166
5.) Detroit Tigers - $132,300,000
6.) Texas Rangers - $120,510,974
7.) Miami Marlins - $118,078,000
8.) San Francisco Giants - $117,620,683
9.) St. Louis Cardinals - $110,300,862
10.) Milwaukee Brewers - $97,653,944

The two that stick out to me are obviously first, the Yankees and their epic collapse in the playoffs last year and the Marlins who were one of the most expensive jokes ever played out in the sports world. The Alex Rodriguez saga continues to play out to this day.

"I wonder if I could stick some PEDs in my butt?"

The teams who made the MLB off-season are fairly well represented on this list. The notable exception being the Oakland A's who were one of the feel good stories of last season. They ranked second to the bottom on the salaries list. 

The Yankees seem to have made one of the worst decisions in player management, signing A-Rod to a huge multi-year deal only to find themselves desperately trying to get out of in light of his stinky post-season and new allegations of PED use.

Compared to the other two sports it does seem like money plays a decent factor in on field success. But it's impossible to look past how skewed the Yankees make that seem. Let's not forget the drama surrounding the Red Sox either. Indeed the top 4 most salaried teams in baseball all failed to make the post-season. 

Obviously the lack of a salary cap in baseball plays a huge factor in this. That only makes the lack of success of those four teams seem that much egregious. 

As an aside let's look at college football while we're at it. Now as we all know college football is an amateur sport and the players aren't compensated (lol) so let's look at the top 10 most well payed head coaches: (source)

1.) Nick Saban, Alabama, SEC, $5,476,738
2.) Mack Brown, Texas, Big 12, $5,353,750
3.) Bob Stoops, Oklahoma, Big 12, $4,550,000
4.) Urban Meyer, Ohio State, Big Ten, $4,300,000
5.) Les Miles, LSU, SEC, $3,856,417
6.) Kirk Ferentz, Iowa, Big Ten, $3,835,000
7.) Steve Spurrier, South Carolina, SEC, $3,585,000
8.) Gene Chizik, Auburn, SEC, $3,577,500
9.) Chip Kelly, Oregon, Pac-12, $3,500,000
10.) Gary Patterson, TCU, Big 12, $3,467,926

I don't think anyone is surprised to see Saban at the top of this list. However, after that it gets a little confusing. I think it's safe to say Mack Brown's salary is based more on past accomplishments rather than what he's done lately. I have a hard time justifying Bob Stoops' third place finish also. I imagine Urban Meyer on the other hand will be in the second place spot before too long. 

Money's nice but the blood of children is better.

The most surprising one for me is Kirk Ferentz on this list. I guess being the second longest termed coach in the Big 10 will do that. But that speaks more to the high-turn around in that conference over the recent years. 

The list as a whole isn't that surprising, although I bet Auburn wishes they hadn't such a knee-jerk reaction in paying Chizik so much as we was never that good of a coach. He simply caught lightning in a bottle with Cam Newton.

Looking at all of these sports as a whole I think you can definitely say that money plays a factor in the success you see in whatever sport, but it's by no means the be all end all. Good player management and individual skill play equal if not greater parts. How else do you explain the Oakland A's getting to the playoffs, the Cinderella team knocking Kansas out of the tournament, or App. State beating Michigan at home? Contrast that to the Lakers struggling to make the playoffs, the Yankees being swept, and Iowa not even making it to a bowl game.

I think it's interesting that across all sports such a large amount of however much is paid is based on what a player of coach has done in the past rather than an incentive to do well in the future. Look at how many times an athlete or coach is given a high paying contract only to bomb the next year. (Chris Johnson, Gene Chizik) It just seems so reactionary.

Just going by this it seems like the sport where money does have the biggest factor is the NBA. I think it has something to do with what I said about individual player skill being such a huge factor and the fact that just one really, really good player can make all the difference on an NBA team. A single Lebron or Anthony Davis can be a game-changer. In the NFL you have so many more players to deal with not to mention that you can have an extremely good defense but if your quarterback sucks you won't go anywhere. (Titans) Player chemistry is also an important factor, that's probably why the Lakers aren't doing so well right now.

The main difference between the NFL and college football is obviously that your roster changes big time every year. In the NFL for the most part you can expect some consistency. That's why I don't have a problem with Saban being paid so much money because with turn-over every year he is still so consistent. I think money plays a big factor because that's what you expect from a good coach, consistency and the more you're willing to pay the more you're able to afford that. 

I think hitting the ball helped a lot, but I'm not sure.

I know the least about baseball but as an outsider looking in it seems like money would be one of the least factors to consider. Isn't that a little bit what "Moneyball" is about? When you look at those highest paid teams in baseball and none of them paid the post-season you can see reasons why for each one. Lack of hitting, shitty management, bad chemistry, etc. etc. To my uneducated eyes it seems like player chemistry and a good general manager are would be some of the biggest factors there. (Oakland)

So to wrap this up I guess what I'm saying is money is kind of important.