Will Parity be Enhanced with the New CBA?

[lamafist]

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.

I don't think we really disagree very much on the football part, just the semantics. Parity is what is achieved by leveling the playing field, not the level playing field itself. If you start using parity to mean a quality pertaining to the system, the word can no longer function as it does in every other context -- for example, it would be nonsensical to say there's parity between the NFL's teams, as such use of parity would already presume the relationship of teams.

No, the only way the word really makes sense in the context of the NFL and the rest of the language is if parity in sports means the narrowing of the gap between the best and worst teams. If, hypothetically, you had a football league in which the best team would beat the worst team, on average, 7 out of 10 times, and you changed the way teams are built so that the best team now only wins 6 out of 10, you have increased your league's parity. Thus, achieving true parity would make every game a coin-flip.

As I said in my earlier post, the rule changes I came up with would help create parity, but would not be good for the NFL. Because we don't want parity -- we want a level enough playing field to allow us to think of the NFL as a meritocracy.

 

[mgteich]

You keep on saying this. Lots COULD be done to increase parity, if the nfl thought it reasonable to do so. As you say, the current system greatly rewards teams with better ownership, management and coaching. Almost all systems will (and should) have that as a systemic bias.

Obviously, access to free agents was a rule that was used recently. Shouldn't the implementation of that ONE rule tend to lead to a bit more parity?
============================================
There are many possibilities that would make the playing field more level in a given year, and may or may not produce even more balanced results long-term, making it even more difficult for a team to have 10 wins for so many years in a row, and making it even more difficlut for a team to win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years.

You and I may like the current system, and we may believe that it is the best system for the nfl. That is NOT the same as saying that we couldn't have a more even playing field and more parity in results.

See below for a few examples that might increase parity in the nfl. Obviously, there are many more possibilities. BTW, I do NOT advocate any of these options.
===================================
ACCESS TO ROOKIES
Teams now has differences in access to rookies; that is, there is a draft. Extra picks COULD be allocated to teams that finished with fewer that 7 wins the year before (more than one for fewer wins). We know a compensatory system can work. We've had one for years for teams that have a net loss of players in free agency.

USE OF THE FRANCHISE AND TRANSITIONS TAGS
The teams in the conference championships could excluded from using such tags for the next season.

ACCESS TO FREE AGENTS
Access to free agents could be restricted based on playoff results in the previous season.

VOLUNTARY ADDITIONAL CAP ROOM
Additional cap room could be allocated to losing teams based on record. Teams would not be required to use this optional cap room, nor would this additional cap room count in determining the cap floor. Or, a credit for up to a certain amount of dead money could be used to create optional additional cap room for teams tahn won fewer than 7 games.

.

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

 

[MoLewisrocks]

You keep on saying this. Lots COULD be done to increase parity, if the nfl thought it reasonable to do so. As you say, the current system greatly rewards teams with better ownership, management and coaching. Almost all systems will (and should) have that as a systemic bias. Obviously, access to free agents was a rule that was used recently. Shouldn't the implementation of that ONE rule tend to lead to a bit more parity? ============================================ There are many possibilities that would make the playing field more level in a given year, and may or may not produce even more balanced results long-term, making it even more difficult for a team to have 10 wins for so many years in a row, and making it even more difficlut for a team to win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years. You and I may like the current system, and we may believe that it is the best system for the nfl. That is NOT the same as saying that we couldn't have a more even playing field and more parity in results. See below for a few examples that might increase parity in the nfl. Obviously, there are many more possibilities. BTW, I do NOT advocate any of these options. =================================== ACCESS TO ROOKIES Teams now has differences in access to rookies; that is, there is a draft. Extra picks COULD be allocated to teams that finished with fewer that 7 wins the year before (more than one for fewer wins). We know a compensatory system can work. We've had one for years for teams that have a net loss of players in free agency. USE OF THE FRANCHISE AND TRANSITIONS TAGS The teams in the conference championships could excluded from using such tags for the next season. ACCESS TO FREE AGENTS Access to free agents could be restricted based on playoff results in the previous season. VOLUNTARY ADDITIONAL CAP ROOM Additional cap room could be allocated to losing teams based on record. Teams would not be required to use this optional cap room, nor would this additional cap room count in determining the cap floor. Or, a credit for up to a certain amount of dead money could be used to create optional additional cap room for teams tahn won fewer than 7 games.

There is a difference between parity and consistently incessantly rewarding poor performance and penalizing excellence. The inverse draft alone does enough of that when coupled with a level playing field via salary cap to even out the parity scale.

 

[patriot lifer]

I suppose it makes sense that the 2 primary determinants in whether or not a team is consistently good year-to-year are:

1) Quality of management, which includes the front office (drafting the right players and acquiring the right free agents) and coaching staff (developing the players and the team)

and

2) The quarterback


Since the cap ceiling is lower (and more affordable) and the cap floor is closer to the ceiling, then I suppose the two aforementioned determinants become even more important. Money spent on players will vary less between teams, which makes the game more "fair." We won't necessarily see more turnover in the playoffs year-to-year let's say, but no teams have a theoretical competitive advantage via a deeper pocket.

 

[Ring 6]

You keep on saying this. Lots COULD be done to increase parity, if the nfl thought it reasonable to do so. As you say, the current system greatly rewards teams with better ownership, management and coaching. Almost all systems will (and should) have that as a systemic bias.

Obviously, access to free agents was a rule that was used recently. Shouldn't the implementation of that ONE rule tend to lead to a bit more parity?
============================================
There are many possibilities that would make the playing field more level in a given year, and may or may not produce even more balanced results long-term, making it even more difficult for a team to have 10 wins for so many years in a row, and making it even more difficlut for a team to win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years.

You and I may like the current system, and we may believe that it is the best system for the nfl. That is NOT the same as saying that we couldn't have a more even playing field and more parity in results.

See below for a few examples that might increase parity in the nfl. Obviously, there are many more possibilities. BTW, I do NOT advocate any of these options.
===================================
ACCESS TO ROOKIES
Teams now has differences in access to rookies; that is, there is a draft. Extra picks COULD be allocated to teams that finished with fewer that 7 wins the year before (more than one for fewer wins). We know a compensatory system can work. We've had one for years for teams that have a net loss of players in free agency.

USE OF THE FRANCHISE AND TRANSITIONS TAGS
The teams in the conference championships could excluded from using such tags for the next season.

ACCESS TO FREE AGENTS
Access to free agents could be restricted based on playoff results in the previous season.

VOLUNTARY ADDITIONAL CAP ROOM
Additional cap room could be allocated to losing teams based on record. Teams would not be required to use this optional cap room, nor would this additional cap room count in determining the cap floor. Or, a credit for up to a certain amount of dead money could be used to create optional additional cap room for teams tahn won fewer than 7 games.

I'm not sure penalizing teams that have good season and rewarding teams that have a bad one would enhance long term parity.
Maybe you were, but I wasn't talking about rules to hurt teams that won last year and help those that lost last year, but an overall parity, like the league now has.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think we really disagree very much on the football part, just the semantics. Parity is what is achieved by leveling the playing field, not the level playing field itself. If you start using parity to mean a quality pertaining to the system, the word can no longer function as it does in every other context -- for example, it would be nonsensical to say there's parity between the NFL's teams, as such use of parity would already presume the relationship of teams.

No, the only way the word really makes sense in the context of the NFL and the rest of the language is if parity in sports means the narrowing of the gap between the best and worst teams. If, hypothetically, you had a football league in which the best team would beat the worst team, on average, 7 out of 10 times, and you changed the way teams are built so that the best team now only wins 6 out of 10, you have increased your league's parity. Thus, achieving true parity would make every game a coin-flip.

As I said in my earlier post, the rule changes I came up with would help create parity, but would not be good for the NFL. Because we don't want parity -- we want a level enough playing field to allow us to think of the NFL as a meritocracy.

Parity of opportunity is what the league wants. Rules that give advantages to teams that are poorly managed and disadvantages to teams that are well managed to manipulate results has never been a discussion.

 

[Ring 6]

You keep on saying this. Lots COULD be done to increase parity, if the nfl thought it reasonable to do so. As you say, the current system greatly rewards teams with better ownership, management and coaching. Almost all systems will (and should) have that as a systemic bias.

Obviously, access to free agents was a rule that was used recently. Shouldn't the implementation of that ONE rule tend to lead to a bit more parity?
============================================
There are many possibilities that would make the playing field more level in a given year, and may or may not produce even more balanced results long-term, making it even more difficult for a team to have 10 wins for so many years in a row, and making it even more difficlut for a team to win 3 Super Bowls in 5 years.

You and I may like the current system, and we may believe that it is the best system for the nfl. That is NOT the same as saying that we couldn't have a more even playing field and more parity in results.

See below for a few examples that might increase parity in the nfl. Obviously, there are many more possibilities. BTW, I do NOT advocate any of these options.
===================================
ACCESS TO ROOKIES
Teams now has differences in access to rookies; that is, there is a draft. Extra picks COULD be allocated to teams that finished with fewer that 7 wins the year before (more than one for fewer wins). We know a compensatory system can work. We've had one for years for teams that have a net loss of players in free agency.

USE OF THE FRANCHISE AND TRANSITIONS TAGS
The teams in the conference championships could excluded from using such tags for the next season.

ACCESS TO FREE AGENTS
Access to free agents could be restricted based on playoff results in the previous season.

VOLUNTARY ADDITIONAL CAP ROOM
Additional cap room could be allocated to losing teams based on record. Teams would not be required to use this optional cap room, nor would this additional cap room count in determining the cap floor. Or, a credit for up to a certain amount of dead money could be used to create optional additional cap room for teams tahn won fewer than 7 games.

By the way, look at the results in my post.
The rules you suggest wouldn't create more parity than what has already been achieved over the last decade.

 

[mgteich]

The rules I suggested do indeed punish teams that do well. I do think that if the top AFC did not have access to free agency in the year after they were in the conference championship game, that may have reduced their success. But these teams are so well managed that it may not have made any difference.

IN ANY CASE, I do not recommend any changes. I think that the level of parity is fine.

By the way, look at the results in my post.
The rules you suggest wouldn't create more parity than what has already been achieved over the last decade.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If we extend to an 18 game season and the two additional games are scheduled base on previous year standings as some proposal suggest they would be that would increase parity.

 

[52decleetzu]

Wow, I can't believe knowledgeable fans like you have here are downplaying the new rookie cap, and the ripple effects it will have from the (1st round) of the draft to bringing the terrible teams up closer to the pack.

I really don't have time to battle 20 people right now but this is music to a coaches ears like Belichek who is able to stockpile and manipulate the draft board like he does every year. Of all the teams you guys are going to be one of the teams that benefits the most, yet there are 3 pages basically saying "no big deal".

This is a HUGE deal, for the Pats and a lot of the teams who used to have the "curse" of the top pick(s). And before this new CBA that is what it had become, a huge disadvantage in the overall scheme of things. Not anymore.

Edit - I am mainly talking about the new rookie cap, the salary floor is a whole other area. I do believe that will help as well. It makes the small market teams spend money. Go check where a lot of them were last year in relation to the cap.......nowhere close while other "larger" markets were right at or millions over (Jets, Steelers....off the top of my head)

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Wooshhh! I'm like forgetting about all those top picks wev've had. Can only remember Big Sey a decade ago and Mayo. On one hand you say that terrible teams benefit coming up closer to the pack and on the other hand the Patriots will benefit.

 

[52decleetzu]

Wooshhh! I'm like forgetting about all those top picks wev've had. Can only remember Big Sey a decade ago and Mayo. On one hand you say that terrible teams benefit coming up closer to the pack and on the other hand the Patriots will benefit.

I'm not claiming you have had top picks(umm duh), but those late firsts/early seconds could easily be turned into one with the new numbers. I mentioned the Pats because you have like 2 first rounders and 2 seconds every year it seems like.

Before no one wanted those top picks because of the money, now that is a complete non factor and one could argue the best value now lies at the top of the first round, when before it was at the bottom of the first and early in the second. And that is what the draft is all about.....value. Why do you think Belichek loved to stockpile those early 2nds/late firsts? Because if you ran the numbers(and I have) that is where the value was over the long term. Not anymore.

It changes everything, mainly for the terrible teams picking 1-5, but with one exception in the Pats who have a genius head coach who manipulates the first 60 picks like no one ever has.

Jumping up into the top five with those picks was completely out of the question before, now it is a very real possibility if someone is there who you like that much.