Ideas start with ourselves. In sports, being familiar with or knowing the playfield has been debated to a great extend about how this made a difference to obtain a competitive advantage over the local team.
At the same time, this has had to do with the kind of grass and the size of the field. But at the end all teams obtained the same victory rate playing at home.
The question lies in not having found a real differentiating factor that could give any team a competitive advantage over its adversaries, beyond the advantage of playing at home.
The quality of the team counts and a bigger budget can attract more talent and, therefore, more victories.
Then, am I just saying that the team with more resources is the one able to attract more talent and therefore capable of improving its victory rate? Or, on the other hand, a team on a lower budget will never be able to get a talented and competitive team on low wages?
To both questions the answer is no. As the film Moneyball points out, it’s about breaking the rules.
