Goodell's dream of parity has takin' a vacation in 2009

[Wolfpack]

Re: Salary Cap having an effect on parity in the NFL?

Remember just a few seasons ago it seemed like more than half the league was 7-9, 8-8, or 9-7. Add a couple of two or three loss team, a couple of two or three win teams, and that was the NFL. Sure doesn't look like that will be the case this year.

People are never happy. You're absolutely right in what you have said above... we have seen recent years where it seemed like just about everyone was 7-9, 8-8 or 9-7. And people complained about parity.

Now we're seeing a year where there are a whole bunch of 0/1 win teams plus 0/1 loss teams. And people complain about parity.

 

[Wolfpack]

Somebody clearly doesn't know what Parity means.


Parity doesn't mean 32 .500 teams. Parity means that it only takes a year or two to rebuild, and that the teams at the top and bottom cycle pretty quickly.

+1 and it is nice to see someone understand what parity really means.

Parity means that no team has a ridiculously unfair competitive advantage over any other. There is no team spending $200 million on payroll when others can't afford to spend $25 million (unlike some other sports). It does not mean every team is going to be equal. Since it is a level playing field, smart teams with smart management will succeed (Patriots, Steelers, Giants). Stupid teams with stupid management will fail (Lions, Raiders, Rams).

 

[Boots Electric]

Last season, there was a team that went winless and two teams that only won 2 games.

In 2005, there were 7 teams with 4 wins or fewer.

In 2001, there was a 1 win team, a 2 win team, a 3 win team and a trio of 5 win teams.

This stuff happens.

^This.

It's all cyclical. Though the Top 10 rookie contracts every year have basically crushed teams that do not draft or scout well in this decade (Lions, Raiders, Browns). Eventually, all the teams bad decisions will show and that grew this year.

But parity is part of the NFL, just last year, you had the Dolphins go from a one loss team to Division Champions.

 

[Synovia]

But parity is part of the NFL, just last year, you had the Dolphins go from a one loss team to Division Champions.

And you've had the Titans go from the #1 seed to 0-6.

 

[DaBruinz]

Why is it, all of a sudden, Goodell's dream of Parity? The idea of Parity in the league came in with the Salary Cap. That was long before Goodell took over.

I don't mind taking swipes at him for his dumbness on which WWII bunker he visited or his gross over-reaction to the Patriots video-taping scandal. But attributing something to him that was in place 15 years prior to his taking over seems pretty stupid.

 

[Pats726]

Why is it, all of a sudden, Goodell's dream of Parity? The idea of Parity in the league came in with the Salary Cap. That was long before Goodell took over.

I don't mind taking swipes at him for his dumbness on which WWII bunker he visited or his gross over-reaction to the Patriots video-taping scandal. But attributing something to him that was in place 15 years prior to his taking over seems pretty stupid.

It was a LONG time ago...and it's really NOT the case now...NOT just Goodell....
As the poster said..a few great teams, a few teams that are putrid and all others in between..I would though like to know if there are less close games this year than in others or if the number of wins by 20 points plus this year is more compared to others. I think it's MORE this year..but someone will need to look that up. It feels like so many noncompetitive games..

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's too early to draw conclusions for this season, but i think this goes up and down year by year. Also, there are vagaries of scheduling that go into these numbers.

To me, though, the most important thing is that this is not a function of one team being able to "buy" an advantage, but of teams that "manage, coach and play" themselves into an advantage.

"Parity" is an opportunity, not a guarantee.

The Patriots and Steelers have dominated the championships of the past ten years, winning half of them between themselves, but remaining just two of 32 teams with the same total possible payroll and the same risks of Free Agency and injury every season that the other 30 teams must face. They have won because they have enjoyed superior ownership, management and coaching (not to mention two pretty good QB's).

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

This is a Great Thread.

I think what really shines this year, isn't that there are so many lower level teams, but that they are Horrible. Most of these games that the dogs are losing aren't even competitive.

Scores for this week alone:
Jets 38 Oakland 0
Green Bay 31 Clevelan 3
San Diego 37 KC 7
Indy 42 Rams 6
New E 35 Tampa 7

These bad teams aren't just losing, they are getting slaughtered. I think that's part of why it feels like there are so many bad teams in the league this year.

The week before
Packers 26 Lions 0
Pats 59 Titans 0

Week Before that
Giants 44 Oakland 7
Vikings 38 Rams 10
Seahawks 41 Jags 0
Colts 31 Titans 9

These games are such blowouts it just makes it appear that the losers, are freaking Horrible and would be strained to beat Alabama or Florida or Texas at this point. Let alone show up on Sunday and "compete" at a High Level. (edit...I know a College Team couldn't really beat a horrible NFL team, just putting that out there for effect.)

Anyway...great thread!

 

[pats1]

Florio talked about the same thing yesterday:

PFTV looks at whether parity is dead | ProFootballTalk.com

 

[NateDaGreatSaint]

I just wanted to say that you guys have very intriguing and informative conversations compared to most boards that just argue. I think unintelligent people breed warped opinions and an argumentative attitude, but that is definitely not the case here.

 

[Boots Electric]

A bit off topic here but you know who really gets screwed with all these bad teams, Vegas. They keep trying to make that line higher and higher yet teams still manage to cover the spread. I can't imagine how high the line will be with the Chargers-Raiders game next week.

 

[Wolfpack]

A bit off topic here but you know who really gets screwed with all these bad teams, Vegas. They keep trying to make that line higher and higher yet teams still manage to cover the spread. I can't imagine how high the line will be with the Chargers-Raiders game next week.

If by "Vegas" you mean the casinos, then it doesn't really affect them. They set (and adjust) the line to get equal action on both sides so it doesn't matter them them which team wins or which team covers. Besides, last week's 2 biggest underdogs both covered the spread (in fact, one of them won outright). Oakland beat Philly and Cleveland covered against Pittsburgh.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I just wanted to say that you guys have very intriguing and informative conversations compared to most boards that just argue. I think unintelligent people breed warped opinions and an argumentative attitude, but that is definitely not the case here.

Oh yeah no arguments?

You haven't visited our Maroney threads yet

 

[Boots Electric]

If by "Vegas" you mean the casinos, then it doesn't really affect them. They set (and adjust) the line to get equal action on both sides so it doesn't matter them them which team wins or which team covers. Besides, last week's 2 biggest underdogs both covered the spread (in fact, one of them won outright). Oakland beat Philly and Cleveland covered against Pittsburgh.

I was talking about the bookmakers. They can't get people to bet into bad teams. Just read an article on it. I just have the habit of saying Vegas because....well I'm not really sure hahahaha. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Gumby]

I wonder how much of the lack of parity this year could possibly be attributable to the specter of the year without a CBA?

Are the marginally managed teams positioning themselves differently with player talent this year than those teams with substantial cash reserves (i.e. merchandising & other revenue streams)?


not sure how to measure that but that would be my one wild guess as to an underlying cause. But the arguments about the rules changes opening the game up more for pass offenses and dependency on a very limited supply of good QBs makes some sense too.

 

[NateDaGreatSaint]

Oh yeah no arguments?

You haven't visited our Maroney threads yet

I guess your Laurence Maroney threads are like our Reggie Bush threads...

 

[Deus Irae]

I wonder how much of the lack of parity this year could possibly be attributable to the specter of the year without a CBA?

Are the marginally managed teams positioning themselves differently with player talent this year than those teams with substantial cash reserves (i.e. merchandising & other revenue streams)?


not sure how to measure that but that would be my one wild guess as to an underlying cause. But the arguments about the rules changes opening the game up more for pass offenses and dependency on a very limited supply of good QBs makes some sense too.

Next year, with no salary floor, should be very interesting. Teams like Tampa Bay (Glazers reportedly money tight due to other purchases), Jacksonville (small following) and Kansas City (Owner on hook for new stadium) will bear watching.

 

[JSn]

I guess your Laurence Maroney threads are like our Reggie Bush threads...

Haha. I have a Saints fan buddy who has a serious love/hate thing with Bush. Loves his potential, hates the reality.

 

[ElReyDeLosReyes]

This is a result of my imo too many teams in the NFL. Some teams just won't have the talent to compete.

 

[jmt57]

I guess your Laurence Maroney threads are like our Reggie Bush threads...

I'm guessing most fan forums have their one favorite whipping boy, regardless of record. If not a player like Bush, there's always the old reliable 'start the backup/bench the starting QB', 'fire the head coach', and 'the owner should sell the team' on many fan sites; sometimes we forget how lucky we are to have (usually) avoided those three staples in recent years.

What Saints site(s) is/are the best in your opinion?