Will Parity be Enhanced with the New CBA?

[patriot lifer]

As we've seen in previous seasons, some teams would max out the respective years' salary cap while other teams did not. Big market teams such as Dallas, New England, and Washington would freely spend more than teams who were more miserly in spending habits due to simple economics. With the salary cap reigned in, it can make salary cap maximization more reachable. Granted salary cap optimization will always be an art and science that some front offices artfully manipulate while others flounder.

In addition, players in the first round may have greater mobility to move from team to team as they exit their rookie contracts sooner. The free flow of player capital via free agency may compound this effect of increased parity and contention of more NFL teams.

This all being said, a monumental and tidal change in parity is unlikely, but some effect is a possibility. It has happened that teams have transformed from "worst-to-first" in the past, but perhaps bad teams won't be so mired in mediocrity for long spans of time. High revenue teams can't exploit a high ceiling in the salary cap, plus more teams will find top draft picks obtainable sooner, which will all-in-all feed into a diffusion of NFL talent more evenly between teams.


What insights and musings does everyone have? Does anyone see it play out this way, or even the opposite? Or no change at all?

 

[sbpatfan]

The contract max length change doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It affects (EDIT) 32 players. I don't understand why people are making a big deal about it (actually, one one person is - but still).

 

[patriot lifer]

The contract max length change doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It affects about 16 players. I don't understand why people are making a big deal about it (actually, one one person is - but still).

Yeah, the primary difference would definitely be with the salary cap reduction. Obviously not having 6-year rookie contracts will have some impact but not nearly as much.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think it's a little early to assess the far reaching effects of a CBA we don't know all the details on yet. That said, a salary cap is a natural enhancement to potential parity but what seperates the men from the boys consistently is savvy ownership and management who understand how to work within whatever system the CBA ultimately dictates.

And I don't really think you will see anything more from the rookie cap than a reduction in wasted salary (40-55% estimated) that hopefully leads to better compensation not for the superstars but for the heart and soul veterans during and after their careers. Few 6 rookie year deals which had already been limited to top 16 draftees have been signed in the last couple of years as it is.

 

[Sciz]

If anything, I think it will separate the teams that can manage their cap well from the teams that can't even more.

 

[patriot lifer]

I think it's a little early to assess the far reaching effects of a CBA we don't know all the details on yet. That said, a salary cap is a natural enhancement to potential parity but what seperates the men from the boys consistently is savvy ownership and management who understand how to work within whatever system the CBA ultimately dictates.

And I don't really think you will see anything more from the rookie cap than a reduction in wasted salary (40-55% estimated) that hopefully leads to better compensation not for the superstars but for the heart and soul veterans during and after their careers. Few 6 rookie year deals which had already been limited to top 16 draftees have been signed in the last couple of years as it is.

Definitely true. We won't have JaMarcus Russells running around collecting tons of cash that should be going to those deserving. It's much more meritocratic.

 

[Ring 6]

As we've seen in previous seasons, some teams would max out the respective years' salary cap while other teams did not. Big market teams such as Dallas, New England, and Washington would freely spend more than teams who were more miserly in spending habits due to simple economics. With the salary cap reigned in, it can make salary cap maximization more reachable. Granted salary cap optimization will always be an art and science that some front offices artfully manipulate while others flounder.

In addition, players in the first round may have greater mobility to move from team to team as they exit their rookie contracts sooner. The free flow of player capital via free agency may compound this effect of increased parity and contention of more NFL teams.

This all being said, a monumental and tidal change in parity is unlikely, but some effect is a possibility. It has happened that teams have transformed from "worst-to-first" in the past, but perhaps bad teams won't be so mired in mediocrity for long spans of time. High revenue teams can't exploit a high ceiling in the salary cap, plus more teams will find top draft picks obtainable sooner, which will all-in-all feed into a diffusion of NFL talent more evenly between teams.


What insights and musings does everyone have? Does anyone see it play out this way, or even the opposite? Or no change at all?

I dont know if it is possible to have more parity.

 

[Deus Irae]

Unless it's set up in such a way that the best QBs start swapping teams or teams legitimately can't keep top players, I doubt parity will be impacted much. I doubt either of those will be the case in the longterm.

 

[lamafist]

I dont know if it is possible to have more parity.

Really?

I'd say that not having the Colts, Patriots or Steelers representing the AFC in 9 of the next 10 Super Bowls would be a start.

(Not that I'm complaining about the Patriots part.)

 

[DaBruinz]

Really?

I'd say that not having the Colts, Patriots or Steelers representing the AFC in 9 of the next 10 Super Bowls would be a start.

(Not that I'm complaining about the Patriots part.)

That is a result of team management. Can you really fault those teams for having excellent management that has put together amazing teams under the salary cap system?

What we will see is several teams forces to spend more money in the short term than they have recently. Teams like Tampa, Philly, Cincy. That will take some talent away from teams like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. But, in the long run, it's been proven that spending money doesn't guarantee anything (Thank you, Dan Snyder).

 

[mgteich]

The patriots, steelers, colts, chargers and the ravens have dominated the AFC for a decade and it is NOT possible to have more parity????

Perhaps we need to define parity. Do all the teams have approximately equal chance of making the playoffs and Super Bowl each year?

Personally, I don't want more parity. But then my team is one of the dominant teams.

I dont know if it is possible to have more parity.

 

[Ring 6]

Really?

I'd say that not having the Colts, Patriots or Steelers representing the AFC in 9 of the next 10 Super Bowls would be a start.

(Not that I'm complaining about the Patriots part.)

Half of the playoffs teams each year are out the next year.
The PAtriots, Colts and Steelers are successful because they are run better. You can't make rules to overcome better management within whatever the rules are.

 

[Frezo]

Half of the playoffs teams each year are out the next year.
The PAtriots, Colts and Steelers are successful because they are run better. You can't make rules to overcome better management within whatever the rules are.

Yes

The league cannot create parity. It can only put rules in place to foster it. You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Ring 6]

The patriots, steelers, colts, chargers and the ravens have dominated the AFC for a decade and it is NOT possible to have more parity????

Perhaps we need to define parity. Do all the teams have approximately equal chance of making the playoffs and Super Bowl each year?

Personally, I don't want more parity. But then my team is one of the dominant teams.

The NFCS had a multi year string of the last place team finsihing in first the next year.
Playoff teams turn over by 50%each year. Many teams go worst to first.
There are select well run teams that are successful and select poor run teams that are not. You cant make rules to change that.

In the last 10 years, 7 of 30 teams won more than 90 games (better than 9-7 average) and only 4 averaged more than 10.
9 lost more than 90 (avg season worse than 7-9) and only 3 lost more than 100.

On avg
4 teams better than 10-6
3 teams 9-7 to 10-6
16 teams between 9-7 and 7-9
6 teams betwen 7-9 and 6-10
3 teams worse than 6-10

As far as the playoffs,
29 of 32 have made the playoffs
of those 29
1 made it once
7 twice
6 3 times
5 4 times
2 5 times
and 8 more than half the time
None have made it every year

When there are playoff slots for 37.5% of the teams, and 15 have made the playoffs more than 37.5% and 17 less, it doesnt get much closer.

Yes, I dont know how you could create rules that result in more parity.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes

The league cannot create parity. It can only put rules in place to foster it. You can lead a horse to water...

Excatly, and what they have done has created about as much parity as you can expect when management and human decisions are involved.

 

[Wolfpack]

Really?

I'd say that not having the Colts, Patriots or Steelers representing the AFC in 9 of the next 10 Super Bowls would be a start.

(Not that I'm complaining about the Patriots part.)

And over that exact same timespan, 10 different NFC teams have been to those 10 Super Bowls. And 7 different teams won those 10 Super Bowls. So I'd say that's some pretty good parity.

Regardless, you're looking at the results and seeing 3 teams dominate the AFC over the past decade and saying "that's not parity". Parity is the system, not the results. And the system is such that every team competes on a level playing field.

 

[lamafist]

That is a result of team management. Can you really fault those teams for having excellent management that has put together amazing teams under the salary cap system?

What we will see is several teams forces to spend more money in the short term than they have recently. Teams like Tampa, Philly, Cincy. That will take some talent away from teams like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. But, in the long run, it's been proven that spending money doesn't guarantee anything (Thank you, Dan Snyder).

Half of the playoffs teams each year are out the next year.
The PAtriots, Colts and Steelers are successful because they are run better. You can't make rules to overcome better management within whatever the rules are.

And over that exact same timespan, 10 different NFC teams have been to those 10 Super Bowls. And 7 different teams won those 10 Super Bowls. So I'd say that's some pretty good parity.

Regardless, you're looking at the results and seeing 3 teams dominate the AFC over the past decade and saying "that's not parity". Parity is the system, not the results. And the system is such that every team competes on a level playing field.

Ah, see, to me, based on how the word parity has been used in science and math before being applied to sports, I would have to disagree -- parity is an observable quality and would be more applicable to the results than the system. That's just my take, though.

Also, I don't disagree that the Pats, Colts and Steelers have largely earned their dominance by being some of the best run organizations in the league.

I'm just saying, even if half of the teams that made the playoffs one year are out the next, that still makes the previous year's playoff teams more than twice as likely to make the playoffs than teams that didn't. In the NFL, a team's previous-season Pythagorean expected win total is still a relatively strong predictor for the next season's record, and the variation in team's average win total doesn't resemble what you'd see via random distribution.

Of course, these, to me, are good things. I think the NFL's reached a goal more desirable than real parity, which is team mobility on the low end. Teams don't have to spend too long in "rebuilding mode" before they can really contend. "Worst to first" teams have become more commonplace, without much of a corresponding rise in "first to worst" teams.

I suppose, if one really wanted to encourage more true parity, there are adjustments to the NFL system that could be made. One could, for example, set a team's salary cap on a sliding scale based on previous year's win total. Or have the number of draft picks a teams gets, either instead of or in addition to the location, be determined by worst record. Have teams drafting in the early part of each round able to sign rookies to longer contracts.

I don't think any of these ideas would really improve the NFL, but they would increase parity.

 

[Ring 6]

Ah, see, to me, based on how the word parity has been used in science and math before being applied to sports, I would have to disagree -- parity is an observable quality and would be more applicable to the results than the system. That's just my take, though.

Also, I don't disagree that the Pats, Colts and Steelers have largely earned their dominance by being some of the best run organizations in the league.

I'm just saying, even if half of the teams that made the playoffs one year are out the next, that still makes the previous year's playoff teams more than twice as likely to make the playoffs than teams that didn't. In the NFL, a team's previous-season Pythagorean expected win total is still a relatively strong predictor for the next season's record, and the variation in team's average win total doesn't resemble what you'd see via random distribution.

Of course, these, to me, are good things. I think the NFL's reached a goal more desirable than real parity, which is team mobility on the low end. Teams don't have to spend too long in "rebuilding mode" before they can really contend. "Worst to first" teams have become more commonplace, without much of a corresponding rise in "first to worst" teams.

I suppose, if one really wanted to encourage more true parity, there are adjustments to the NFL system that could be made. One could, for example, set a team's salary cap on a sliding scale based on previous year's win total. Or have the number of draft picks a teams gets, either instead of or in addition to the location, be determined by worst record. Have teams drafting in the early part of each round able to sign rookies to longer contracts.

I don't think any of these ideas would really improve the NFL, but they would increase parity.

Well we aren't talking about math or science, we are talking abut parity as it relates to sports.
You can't create parity of results unless you make every coach, player, GM and possibly even owner FA subject to random distrubition annually.
Parity in sports is parity of oportunity, and no one has ever pretended to think that parity would wipe out the quality of teams and start each year with a clean slate. The results show pretty clearly that parity of opportunity is about as good as it could get.
Your ideas are how to fix bad teams and penalize good teams for the following season. Thats not the goal in the NFL. Besides you cap plan would be a disaster because you would be increasing a bad teams cap only to cut it and hamstring them when they finally get good.

 

[Gwedd]

Really?

I'd say that not having the Colts, Patriots or Steelers representing the AFC in 9 of the next 10 Super Bowls would be a start.

(Not that I'm complaining about the Patriots part.)

In reality, parity really hasn't been that effective in the league, and I doubt never will be.

See, no matter what rules are put into place, the coach who understands those rules, and understands the abilities and limits of his players will always win championships.

Fighter pilots understand situational awareness, in the same way that Coach preaches situational football. They understand that the key to winning isn't so much understanding the rules, but understanding your own strengths and weaknesses, and the tendencies of the other guy(s) in certain situations. For example, the first US kill of a North Korean Mig-15 jet fighter was by a pilot flying a Navy WWII-era Propeller-driven Corsair fighter. That pilot knew his plane inside out, what it could and couldn't do. He knew what his enemy's tendencies were, and he exploited them.

That's what Coach does every week, every season. Understands what his team can and can't do, what the other side's tendencies are based upon down & distance, time left, score, weather, wind direction, sun, etc.

So, bring on the rules changes, bring on the salary caps, etc. All that makes for a lot of interesting speculation amongst writers, pundits and fans, and that's fine. But it really doesn't effect the good teams that much at all.

respects,

 

[JoeSixPat]

Everyone's overly focused on a salary cap and not paying enough attention to a potential salary floor - supposedly set at 89% of the cap - I think setting a salary floor would tend have an impact to foster increased parity.

How much?

Tough to say... it would increase the amount some teams spend and maybe increase competition for players - but I don't suspect it will be a big impact on the Patriots anyways... we've seen plenty of "expensive" teams suck around the NFL and I suspect that will continue.

There's been a great many other factors fostering parity to date and we can see how often the Patriots are mediocre in that system.