Glenneel
Bench
- Messages
- 3,810
To simply it you can say that all clubs have the same resources (salary cap) as every other club, some have more TPAs (Broncos), some have more staff, and some have more intangibles (like the Roosters). We now have fulltime staff from HM up (which apparently we didn't previously), putting more money into women's teams and, from reports, have a coach with a vision and a plan (unlike previously apparently). Proof will be in the pudding next year on how we go but you'd have to say that we are now a well resourced team and on that metric alone should improve next year. BUT, will a well resourced team, such as ours now, win a premiership? Over the you...Pou.You’ve just placed adhoc obstacles to what I said in order to support your narrative. If you’re going to claim the value of a business has no correlation with resourcing capability the onus is on YOU to show that. Occam’s razor tells you that the value of a business means they have more resources. That’s nothing bold or outrageous. What’s ridiculous is arbitrarily claiming that high value businesses only exist in that form because they’re cheap and hire minimal staff (without any evidence to support this).
Also your claim about there every team in the NFL having a 1 in 32 chance isn’t supported by the data either. Thats assuming every team starts off with an equal chance (which is just wrong). For starters the NBA and NFL have a conference system which means you only have to finish at a certain position relative to the other teams in your conference. One conference is usually stronger than the other as well. In fact in the NBA you can finish as low as 10th out of 16 teams and theoretically win the whole thing. Thats more leeway than 8th out of 17 teams.
Also you don’t just get to assume onfield results are directly correlated with resourcing. Do you think the Tigers have been the poorest NRL club for the past three seasons? I would say decision making is a just as much of if not more important factor.