General comparison: baseball's economics are poor

Without getting too deep into legal jargon, most casual fans would find it hard to disagree that football is, and will continue to be, a more popular sport than baseball. There may be a million and one different reasons why, but perhaps the most prominent is the salary cap. In baseball's case, the lack thereof. Think about preseason football versus spring training for baseball. There are 32 NFL teams and 30 MLB teams. Each year, about 75% of NFL teams go into the season with legitimate hope of making the playoffs. Baseball? Try about half -- if that. Now I don't want to turn this piece into a complete Yankees/Red Sox-bashing, as fun as that might be. But with combined payrolls topping $300 million dollars, how can one not? Consider this disturbing fact -- four Yankees are currently making more than the ENTIRE Florida Marlins team. Need a double-check? This is not a misprint. It's cold, hard, sad fact. Then consider this: Alex Rodriguez, making roughly $25 million a year, could tear his ACL tomorrow and be lost for the season, yet continue to earn that money. Conversely, Peyton Manning does not earn paychecks for games that he misses (save for signing bonus money, the only guaranteed money in the NFL). There is always talk about the big market clubs versus the "small-market" clubs. In football, league officialls generally consider the Buffalo Bills and Cincinnati Bengals, owned by Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown, respectively, to be the two lowest-revenue teams in football. But the difference in football is poor seasons result in a couple of things: high draft position and an "easier" schedule the next season. The former "Bungles", a one-time laughingstock, were 2-14 in 2002 and earned the first pick in the '03 draft. They used it on Heisman Trophy winner Carson Palmer. Two years later, they were back in the playoffs for the first time since 1990. The Bills, though scuffling of late, made four straight Super Bowl appearances in the early 1990's and have continued to field competitive teams over the years despite geographic anonymity and a crummy stadium.
Okay, I think you see where I'm going with this. But let me just pad this article with a few more keys that make football more competitively balanced that Bud Selig's MLB. 16 games versus 162. Hence, more significance in each game. More than half-full stadiums (try consistent sellouts), as opposed to MLB, where you'd be hard pressed to find any stadium (save for perhaps New York and Boston) more than two-thirds full. In many cities (i.e. Tampa, Kansas City), more than 2/3 of the stadium comes disguised as empty seats. And what, prietel, could that be attributed to? It couldn't be because those teams have no chance in you-know-what of competing on a yearly basis, could it? Hmm...
I'm going to hold off on telling you that in football, scheming, coaching, and gameplanning actually matter, as opposed to oversized, juiced players like Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds hovering over home plate scaring the Bejesus out of the pitchers, who in turn are too afraid to throw a strike. Did we mention baseball had a faulty drug-testing system? Oh, well, maybe another time. Anyways, that's all she wrote for now. Meanwhile, you baseball fans (sadly, I remain one of them) sit back and watch the Yankees and Red Sox square off for the 76th time in the ALCS, then the winner goes on to buy (excuse me, win) another championship. Or, just let these three-hour yawners tide you over until September 7, when the 2006 NFL season finally kicks off -- at long last.