Interesting article on parity

[Rossmci90]

Six signs parity is dead in NFL - Kerry J. Byrne - SI.com

Week 7 of the 2009 season offered more televised beatings than the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Six of the 13 games last week games were uncompetitive blowouts -- each decided by 28 points or more. If that rash of routs seemed unusual, there's a good reason: it was.

Pro football had produced six four-touchdown blowouts just once before in its history: back in Week 14 of the 1970 season, the very first year of the AFL-NFL merger.

Read more: Six signs parity is dead in NFL - Kerry J. Byrne - SI.com

He makes a lot of good points, especially when it comes to passing. Rules that favour passing have made the NFL a more exciting league, but it also means that you need a good QB to succeed and there are only so many. Teams without a star QB lose and lose badly.

However his last point is a terrible one.

Back in the day, before the efforts to "level the playing field," a poorly managed team could splurge for a season or two on talent and compete. Money is the great equalizer. But that weapon has been removed and now, more than ever, not less than ever, NFL teams are dependent upon smart decision-makers and good executives. The NFL has maximized, not minimized, inequality on the playing field by maximizing the importance of management.

You only have to look sports leagues all over the world that have no salary cap and you see an unbalanced league. The English Premier league has had a grand total of 4 different winners since 1992. Yes, that's 4 teams in 18 seasons. There may be have and have nots in the NFL, but is that really as bad as one team spending more on one player than lesser teams can spend in 3 or 4 years?

Money is definately not the answer. Removing the salary cap is not the answer. The only thing that cripples bad teams is the ridiculous high salaries of top picks.

 

[Wolfpack]

This gets back to my "people are never happy" theory. If all the games were close and 28 teams in the league were .500 or within 1 game of .500 then people would be complaining about how every team was mediocre and there were no good teams.

This year we happen to have some dominant teams and some atrocious ones, which produces a lot of blow outs.

But it is all cyclical and we will see many of both types of years in the future.

Not to mention the fact that this guy doesn't realize that "parity" in the NFL means a level playing field. It does not mean that all teams are going to be equal every year.

 

[Mike the Brit]

He makes a lot of good points, especially when it comes to passing.

Nope! He completely misses the basic point, which is that parity isn't *within* years but is over a period of years.

Every year 12 teams out of 32 go to the play-offs. How many teams have been in that top 35% every year for the last five years? Without spending a long time checking, I'd say only Indianapolis. That's absolutely amazing. Yes, indeed, some teams have been consistently well managed (Pittsburgh, New England) and some consistently bad (Detroit, Raiders ) but it's striking how few there are at the extremes. My goodness! Who would have thought that the Cardinals would get to a Superbowl or that the Saints would look like the most powerful team in the NFC?

The fact that some teams have an edge doesn't mean that there is no parity. It's a relative matter. And relative to any other sport that I can think of football has parity to a very high degree.