Parity

[Slagathor]

I've been listening and watching the media talk alot about parity in the NFL this week.

They discuss how Pete Rozelle actually wanted to create parity in the league.......the goal being, every year........all teams had a chance to be champs.

They talk about what a failure it is, but no one seems to address why?

The reason is simple.

Everybody has equal money to work with.
Everybody has access to great talent through free agency.

But if you don't have luck or you don't have smart/wily ownership and management, you'll be a perrenial also ran.

Regardless if you try to equal the playing field, there is no equalizer for stupidity and bad business.

 

[Ishdul]

Parity means having a league where teams don, not where there's rapid changes in who makes the playoffs from year to year. To that end, the MLB is the league with parity; no 100 win team this year, no 60 win team either, just a bunch of teams that are between 65 and 95 wins.

A season like the 2002-2003 year where the best teams in the NFL had 12 wins, the Raiders won the AFC with 11 wins and you had like 20 teams in the playoff picture in the final week, that' a season with parity. This year, teams like the Patriots, Colts, Cowboys and Steelers should all win a jackload of games while the Bills, Falcons, Rams and Dolphins all look classically awful.

 

[DynastyDriven]

Slag: What happened to your BB is/needs to resign theory?

*coughs* 2013 *coughs*

 

[Slagathor]

Slag: What happened to your BB is/needs to resign theory?

*coughs* 2013 *coughs*

I swear on both of my children that I love more than life itself.........

My post was, that with all the bad publicity camera-gate caused the Pats......

.......and with how conscious Bob and Myra Kraft are of having the Pats maintain a sterling reputation..........

the controversy might have forced Kraft to have BB resign. That was my argument.

Not that he needs to resign. Not that he should. That's one thing that bugged me.

Nobody READ the post throughly. It was speculation on my part.

If anything I totally under-estimated the Krafts. Of that I am guilty and I'm extremely happy my speculation was wrong.

 

[signbabybrady]

the whole parity thing is a stupid thing....regardless of the rules when a team gets good players want to play there making it a little easier to stay there.

 

[Slagathor]

the whole parity thing is a stupid thing....regardless of the rules when a team gets good players want to play there making it a little easier to stay there.

Tell Ty Law that.

 

[QuiGon]

I've been listening and watching the media talk alot about parity in the NFL this week.

They discuss how Pete Rozelle actually wanted to create parity in the league.......the goal being, every year........all teams had a chance to be champs.

They talk about what a failure it is, but no one seems to address why?

I don't think it has been a failure. Part of parity is set up so that no team enjoy a financial advantage over any other, like the Yankees do over Tampa Bay.

With parity, the cream is still going to rise to the top. Better run teams will succeed and poorly run teams will fail.

 

[patsgo]

I swear on both of my children that I love more than life itself.........

My post was, that with all the bad publicity camera-gate caused the Pats......

.......and with how conscious Bob and Myra Kraft are of having the Pats maintain a sterling reputation..........

the controversy might have forced Kraft to have BB resign. That was my argument.

Not that he needs to resign. Not that he should. That's one thing that bugged me.

Nobody READ the post throughly. It was speculation on my part.

If anything I totally under-estimated the Krafts. Of that I am guilty and I'm extremely happy my speculation was wrong.

that was the biggest over reaction ive ever read here, look at it the other way,what do you think the fan base would do if he fired bb or made him resign?thats a pr nightmare

 

[MetalBleachers]

I don't think it has been a failure. Part of parity is set up so that no team enjoy a financial advantage over any other, like the Yankees do over Tampa Bay.

With parity, the cream is still going to rise to the top. Better run teams will succeed and poorly run teams will fail.

I agree. Look at the Cowboys: they were great in the '90s, had an up-and-down run, and now look strong again. The Texans seem to have found their QB and have drafted well on D. The once-great Rams appear to stink.

Our experience as Pats fans over the past seven years is the rarest of rare, and even this team went 5-11 in 2000.

Here's the best example of parity: since the year 2000 (Ravens/Giants SB), only one team has even appeared in the SB more than once, much less won it.

I think we all know who that team is. :woohoo:

 

[BTTA]

The teams DON'T all have the same amount of money to work with. They have the same limits on payroll, and there is some revenue sharing, but some teams have far more revenue than do others. The Krafts have built the Pats into a major business that provides the team with much more income than most teams in the league. And it helps the team win.

 

[MetalBleachers]

The teams DON'T all have the same amount of money to work with. They have the same limits on payroll, and there is some revenue sharing, but some teams have far more revenue than do others. The Krafts have built the Pats into a major business that provides the team with much more income than most teams in the league. And it helps the team win.

While it's true that the Pats have the cash to pay their scouts better (Pats have independent scouts, not regular NFL scouts), some coaches better, and can probably show off a nicer locker room and other amenities than some teams, in the end players go where the salary is.

Except Patriots types of players. And yes, I'm being a shameless homer. :rocker:

 

[FirstAndGoal]

The problem with parity is that it can't address bone-headed moves by the teams. The only way to truly get parity is the blow up the teams each year and reassign players in random fashion to different teams. Beyond that, the cream will always rise to the top.

 

[Deus Irae]

The teams DON'T all have the same amount of money to work with. They have the same limits on payroll, and there is some revenue sharing, but some teams have far more revenue than do others. The Krafts have built the Pats into a major business that provides the team with much more income than most teams in the league. And it helps the team win.

The Redskins are the #1 revenue team in the league, I believe.

 

[mgteich]

Please explain how Kraft's money gives the patriots an advantage.

The teams DON'T all have the same amount of money to work with. They have the same limits on payroll, and there is some revenue sharing, but some teams have far more revenue than do others. The Krafts have built the Pats into a major business that provides the team with much more income than most teams in the league. And it helps the team win.

 

[mgteich]

You get and define parity in many ways. The National League has exactly zero playoff spots locked up with less than a week to go. That's pretty good. But yes, MLB is inherently flawed in that some teams have lots more money and are free to use it to pay players more year after year. Some teams pay more year after year to advantage, some just pay and get much worse results.

In the NFL, the cap prevents paying more to players, year after year. However, the idea isn't to make all teams equal. The idea is to give each team an equal opportunity to pay players. Over time, some teams have better franchises because of better management (ownership, executives and coaches). Over time, under current ownership, the patriots, the colts, the steelers, the bears and the cowboys will be better teams than most of the rest. They will almost always be competitive. That doesn't mean that others don't have a chance.

And yes, perhaps I am in denial by not including the broncos.

I've been listening and watching the media talk alot about parity in the NFL this week.

They discuss how Pete Rozelle actually wanted to create parity in the league.......the goal being, every year........all teams had a chance to be champs.

They talk about what a failure it is, but no one seems to address why?

The reason is simple.

Everybody has equal money to work with.
Everybody has access to great talent through free agency.

But if you don't have luck or you don't have smart/wily ownership and management, you'll be a perrenial also ran.

Regardless if you try to equal the playing field, there is no equalizer for stupidity and bad business.

 

[OldEnglandPatriot]

Please explain how Kraft's money gives the patriots an advantage.

Coaching/scouting salaries are not capped, right? Nor spending on facilities, equipment, medical stuff.

Also, teams don't have to spend up to the cap limit, right? So some may pay less to their players overall. (I am aware that the salary cap rules include a minimum as well as maximum spending level).

 

[Slagathor]

Coaching/scouting salaries are not capped, right? Nor spending on facilities, equipment, medical stuff.

Also, teams don't have to spend up to the cap limit, right? So some may pay less to their players overall. (I am aware that the salary cap rules include a minimum as well as maximum spending level).

I think the key is not how much you can spend, but how wisely you spend it.

Their are NFL coaches nad staff making much more than on the Pats. There are facilities which rival or exceed Gillette's stature.

 

[patchick]

I don't think it has been a failure. Part of parity is set up so that no team enjoy a financial advantage over any other, like the Yankees do over Tampa Bay.

With parity, the cream is still going to rise to the top. Better run teams will succeed and poorly run teams will fail.

This is the classic question of equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome. The salary cap is designed to ensure reasonably equal opportunity. (A mega-rich owner and auxiliary revenue streams make it easier to offer front-loaded contracts, etc., but at least everybody's in the same ballpark.) The draft seeding is designed to promote equality of outcome -- but quality free agents gravitating toward winning teams tends to negate this. So overall, the league has created a fairly even playing field, which means that the better-run organizations win. Works for me.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Let's talk about the increases/decreases, rather than absolutes (such as "teams have the same amount of money"):

1. Teams have closer to the same amount of money to work with, through revenue-sharing. At every step, revenue-sharing has decreased the differences between big-market and small-market teams.

2. It was under Rozelle that the League first understood the basic formula: We are all partners in one business venture, the NFL. So all the teams, for example, have to decide whether the Bills are allowed to give up on Buffalo... and if they're not, it falls on the league (at least in part), to "save" the Buffalo experiment.

3. As others have noted here, the better businesses will be more successful in use of more comparable resources. There is, in fact, a salary cap minimum as well as a maximum, to keep a Yankees/Devil Rays dichotomy from developing.

4. The perenniel winners do evolve from that difference in allocation of resources and yes, luck. But more to the point, there are fewer if any perenniel losers. Witness the Houston turnaround. Before that, the Saints. And before that, the Bungles. Going into the season, every team had a reason to hope. That's what's important, not that winners can not keep a winning edge, but that it is possible for the mighty to fall and the lowly to rise. That is very much the goal originally envisioned.

5. Are teams approaching the point of competitiveness week to week/season to season, or are they receding from that point? I believe they are still approaching that point.

It's a great subject for a Pats board, because we have been the fly in the parity ointment. We built a dynasty with a grand total of one, count him, one superstar. Add Seymour if you like, but this success story was really a Belichick/Kraft/Pioli/Brady combination.

Parity, in other words, can be mitigated by the right combination of coaching, personnel, and culture smarts. Notably, that's not saying you don't need luck/talent, as the Brady part of the equation illustrates.

But think about the coaching/business/personnel part of the Brady development.

They at least had a right hunch in the 6th round to pick him with #199... and you'll notice, it's a pattern. They're always looking for a Brady.

BB and company could look at that 2001 tape, watch Brady march the team down the field in clutch situation after clutch situation, and know what they had there. It's not easy to have the nads to put Bledsoe on the ground, but the discipline of the business end combined with the smarts of the coaching/personnel end to make it the obvious move.

There's a phrase, "you make your own luck." The better-run teams do that repeatedly, while the less well-run teams tend to "reach", wishing they could make that kind of move.

The Pats went through the depletions that a multiple super bowl winner is heir to. Every free agent is overvalued because of his ring. What did we do? Let them walk... and still competed with what we had.

Then when the stars aligned... well, we all watched what happened this summer.

Okay, enough crowing. I think this illustrates that there are winning approaches to football that overshadow the talent one is able to field any given year. This busts the whole idea of parity, to a certain extent.

But these other aspects of football are now in the spotlight, since the talent aspect does not simply pool in one or two dominant teams anymore. Still, bear in mind -- these other inequalities also existed in previous eras. It is just that now, they become the remaining variables (to an extent), as player talent approaches the status of a constant.

So is Parity a failure? I know a Giants fan who thinks they're still going to the Super Bowl, even though they're 1-2. I don't think the Saints have given up, nor have their fans. With a 16-game season, I've seen teams "out of it" by mid season who are right there at game 17 every year. I bet you could collect stats on this, but I'll just lean on the anecdotal for now.

People turn on the TV and root for their team, not out of dumb loyalty, but because their team could win it all. I remember being a Pats fan in the down years... sometimes we were in a bleak quarterbackless desert, and I just thought during game 1, "we'll get 'em next year... or maybe not."

I don't think there's as much of that now. There are too many "rags to riches" stories. We're all undefeated, as the NFL commercials say at the start of every season... and we all actually buy into that.

PFnV

 

[godef]

I've been listening and watching the media talk alot about parity in the NFL this week.

They discuss how Pete Rozelle actually wanted to create parity in the league.......the goal being, every year........all teams had a chance to be champs.

They talk about what a failure it is, but no one seems to address why?

The reason is simple.

Everybody has equal money to work with.
Everybody has access to great talent through free agency.

But if you don't have luck or you don't have smart/wily ownership and management, you'll be a perrenial also ran.

Regardless if you try to equal the playing field, there is no equalizer for stupidity and bad business.

I don't think Rozelle wanted parity in the sense that everyone came as close as possible to 8-8 records. I think he just wanted everyone competing on a level playing field (in regard to opportunities to acquire talent, etc), unlike Major League Baseball where teams in more lucrative markets are allowed to operate with huge advantages. In that regard, I think Rozelle was hugely successful.