NFL parity a thing of the past?

[NJmaverick]

I don't ever recall a season (at least in the last 10 or 15 years) where there were so many teams with a legit chance of going 0-16 or 1-15. What happened to the parity that the NFL was trying so hard to achieve? Why is there such a disparity between the haves and the have nots? What has changed?

[PVnRT]

1. I think parity in the NFL has always largely been a myth

Because players tend to stick with teams longer (thanks to the franchise player tag), it's much easier to build dynasties amongst a few teams that tend to be the cream of the crop every year.

And the most 0-16 teams you can have is 10, and that would require a few 16-0 squads, so that ain't happening any time soon. I should try to work out the math on that sometime.

[madinmaryland]

2. I still think there is a level of parity in the league.

I don't think you can make a judgement over a period of a few games...

Detroit - Matt Millen ran them into the ground.
Oakland - Al Davis (need we say anymore).
St.Louis - Just bad management.

Washington could join the list with Dan Snyder.

Parity is a thing that really can't be evaluated over a few games or even an entire season. Injuries and just the luck of the schedule can really make a difference. (i.e. last years Miami Dolphins).

[NJmaverick]

3. Mad, watching the Giants vs Raiders was like watching a college

top 20 team play a AA team to pad their stats. Even with the Giants missing 3 major defensive players (and another play maker on IR) they totally dominated the Raiders. It was over 3 minutes into the second half. There was a such a disparity in the teams that I suspect the Giants would win 20 out 20 games if they played over and over again. The old "on any given Sunday" just didn't apply.

Beyond that this isn't an isolated case as it seems on top of the teams you mentioned KC (I don't care if the Cowboys struggled to defeat them) Cleveland, Tampa Bay and now Buffalo can join that group.

[madinmaryland]

6. NJM. I specifically listed three teams that truly are horrible and are that

way because of poor management. I still contend that parity is judged over multiple seasons and not a few games or even a season. The three I listed have shown over a period of years that they are poorly managed. Nearly ever other team in the league has had a winning season or close to it in the last several years.

[NJmaverick]

10. You know what's interesting? Most of the winless (or near) teams are in small markets

or economically depressed cities, like Detroit

[madinmaryland]

12. Interestingly, though, if you look at the last 20-30 years, there really

has not been much of a correlation between winning and whether you were a small or large market team. (unlike baseball). Nearly every team in the NFL in the last decade has put up a winning season or at least been competitive. That to me is the definition of parity.

[NJmaverick]

13. Well I am starting to wonder if that is changing

Are we starting to see a shift to have and have nots.

[Auggie]

14. Pittsburgh. Indianapolis. Nashville. Small markets.

[NJmaverick]

16. Their combined record is one win over 500

[Auggie]

18. How about over ten years? I'd think you'd find that good ownership

has kept them all competitive. That's what I believe this conversation is about.

[NJmaverick]

20. The league is ever chainging. New stadiums, huge increases in the salary cap

the economic down turn and now the potential for an uncapped year. With all of this, I am not sure how far you can really go back.

[madinmaryland]

23. The 2010 season is really uncharted and unknown territory.

No one really knows what will be going on. When will the lock-out or strike come? Will there be one?

[Auggie]

25. I agree with mad -- there is an ebb and flow -- but some teams rebound

more quickly than others thanks to the foundation of smart ownership. Every several years or so the stars align and we may reach a greater level of parity, but then bad decisions by bad management -- coupled with bad luck and economic downturns -- reverses the trend. Or, in the case of Oakland, Detroit or Cleveland, you are perpetually fielding a weak team because of meddlesome ownership and/or weak management.

[madinmaryland]

27. Detroit's decade = Matt Millen. 'nuff said.

[Auggie]

29. Cleveland and San Francisco = Dwight Clark, GM

The 49ers are just recovering from his reign of terror. The Browns are still in a hole.

[madinmaryland]

19. I think he is talking about over the last several years.

Taking a snap shot of five weeks and making a blanket statement prediction is a little far fetched for me.

[madinmaryland]

17. I think it is just a natural ebb and flow. I don't think you can really

read too much into it.

There are just too many small teams that have done consistently well, to see a real shift. Two years can really bring a lot of change in the NFL.

[NJmaverick]

22. Look at Al Davis vs Dan Snyder

They are both equally incompentent and meddlesome but because Snyder is in a huge market with tons of cash he does bettter.

[madinmaryland]

24. Dan Snyder was lucky enough to have Joe Gibbs as coach for four years,

to negate some of the damage he has done. I can't really say that it has to do with cash, other than to allow Snyder to throw money at coaches. As for Davis, who knows what is going on out there. Lan Kiffen, Tom Cable. :wtf:

[trumad]

4. OK Cboy/Upton

This meme of the Phins easy schedule cracks me up....

Who gives a shit if they had an easy schedule---they we're 1 and god damn 15 the year before and then went 11-5 the season after and won the division.

[madinmaryland]

7. Lighten up trumad4! After cboy4, he taught everyone here

the "backhanded compliment" real well.

So I guess you got your "one" win last night! :D

[trumad]

8. LOL

[Auggie]

5. mad nails it -- it starts with management and filters down

[hughee99]

9. Even with the cap, you'll never really get true parity...

some teams are better run and better coached than others. All the league can really provide is the equality of opportunity, not the equality of outcome. Given the same talent, some coaches will do more with what they have, and given the same money, some front offices will spend it (or draft) better than others.

[madinmaryland]

11. That's what I would like baseball to do. But the Skankees/RedSox

clique won't let it happen.

[hughee99]

15. How about the "player's union clique".

Why would the MLBPA agree to a salary cap? It would take a shutdown of the sport to ever get that done.

[madinmaryland]

21. Absolutely! Shut it the "f" down. Get rid of Selig and cram it down

the union's and the skankee/redsox/met clique's throats!

[hughee99]

26. The discussion of baseball certainly find us in some rather un-DU-like situations...

Company owners who pay their workers well, return a large portion of their revenue to the workers, and drive up wages across the industry: Good
Baseball owners who pay their workers well, return a large portion of their revenue to the workers, and drive up wages across the industry: Bad

Company owners who reinvest in their company, to make their product better for consumers: Good
Baseball owners who reinvest in their company, to make their product better for consumers: Bad

Ownership causing a work stoppage as a means to break labor and drive down wages: Bad
Baseball ownership causing a work stoppage as a means to break labor and drive down wages: Good

The skankees/redsox/met clique does make 1 good argument on all this, which is that the revenue sharing SHOULD be used to improve the team. Unfortunately, this "improve the team" language is too vague, and some of the most profitable teams are the ones that receive the most in revenue sharing. If you're going to have revenue sharing, you need to have a salary floor so that teams like the Marlins don't receive twice as much in revenue sharing money as they spend on their whole roster.

Personally, I think the MLBPA is too strong right now to get an NFL style salary cap, and a work stoppage isn't in the best interests of the players, the owners, the league, or the fans. IMHO, the only way to really go about it in the foreseeable future is to increase the Luxury tax on high payroll teams and force the teams getting revenue to spend a significant portion on that for players. Sure, they can still piss away the money away by overpaying players, but at least they'll be in the market for some big name free agents, or will be able to keep some of their own players, if they're forced to spend the money "on the field".

Instead of dollar for dollar for all luxury tax, make it a scale. Dollar for dollar for the first X million in the tax, $2 (of tax) for $1 salary from X-Y, and $3 or $4 in tax for $1 in payroll above that. This might make it prohibitively expensive for teams to exceed the defined payroll by too much.

[PVnRT]

28. +1, especially for the salary floor

That's a part of the entire argument that usually gets ignored.

[madinmaryland]

30. Yes. The salary floor is an important part of making a salary cap work.