The League apparently is getting tired of Patriots and Colts domination

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I think the league has pretty much stated that its tired of the Patriots and Colts domination in this decade thus far.

The Colts going back to back 9-0 starts and the Patriots continuously vying for the Super Bowl has probably given the NFL bigwigs the chance to change things a bit.

The first biggest thing is the fact the Patriots and Colts DON'T meet in a primetime affair for the first time in years,Does the league think its time to get rid of this type of near annual game in the national spotlight? or is the tough schedule for both of the teams a concideration in them thinking one of these teams will not be in contention at that time and the game therfore would not be as exciting as usual?.

The schedules for both teams are brutal,at least on paper and if both teams are dominating the AFC again in that week in November I think some will be surprised (San Diego was the exception last year and joined the mix) .

The schedule makers and the league are hoping the mighty will fall and parity will return to the AFC like the NFC is now.

Personally I like the schedule and the bye week - Indianapolis has a stretch that is going to be tougher than any we will have,again going by on paper.

Oh how so many wish the Patriots and Colts domination would spiral downward.... May they be shocked again in 2007,Although I would be extremely happy if the Colts were falling downward :rocker:

 

[He Ban Me]

I cannot imagine the League being any more estatic by having these two in the mix. Maybe they are trying to appear to be not playing favorites. They know they'll get it in January.

 

[richpats]

I think the 4:15pm start was a move to generate MORE ratings than a primetime broadcast, plus CBS needed to get the game again.

Personally I think the NFL is glad the Pats/Colts rivalry has escalated the way it did. Otherwise there wouldn't be as much hype as it is now.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I think the 4:15pm start was a move to generate MORE ratings than a primetime broadcast, plus CBS needed to get the game again.

Personally I think the NFL is glad the Pats/Colts rivalry has escalated the way it did. Otherwise there wouldn't be as much hype as it is now.

I think the rivalry sells tickets but if you ask Goodell or any previous commisioner the MAIN goal in the NFL like in all of sports is parity in the league where every team has a chance to win it all,It sells more tickets,merchandise,TV ratings ect: - Of course thats in all of sports - The league office IMO truly hates when a few teams out of the whole league truly dominate the others in talent and tradition.

Aside from New England,San Diego,Indianapolis and New Orleans and Chicago the other 27 teams really never had a chance to even sniff a championship in 2006 - I think it broadens a bit in 2007 and going forward.

Parity is not so bad,It keeps things interesting and in perspective although I am sure ALL of us here want to see New England dominate EVERYONE else EVERY year,Thats why we are fans.

 

[37Harrison]

I honestly don't think that the league can do anything about parity. They can make all the rules they want and try to limit what teams can do with the cap but you are always going to have 2-3 owners, coaches and GM's that are just better than the rest. Thus creating a mismatch that we are seeing now. How else do you explain teams (arguably) having less talented players beating teams with much more talented players. The answer is with owners, coaches, and GM's that know what they are doing and how to evaluate talent.

I think this rivalry is good for the NFL. I think rivalries are good for sports in general. Look at every decade and you can point to two teams having a rivalry that matches if not beats the rivalry the Pats and Colts have today.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

I honestly don't think that the league can do anything about parity. They can make all the rules they want and try to limit what teams can do with the cap but you are always going to have 2-3 owners, coaches and GM's that are just better than the rest. Thus creating a mismatch that we are seeing now. How else do you explain teams (arguably) having less talented players beating teams with much more talented players. The answer is with owners, coaches, and GM's that know what they are doing and how to evaluate talent.

I think this rivalry is good for the NFL. I think rivalries are good for sports in general. Look at every decade and you can point to two teams having a rivalry that matches if not beats the rivalry the Pats and Colts have today.

What you say may be somewhat true but if the difference in the league between the Best team in the league say at a season record of 12-4 against the worst team in the league a say a 6-10 record,That IMO is a dream any commisioner looks for and hopes happens - But usually its the top team at 14-2 and the worst at about 2-14 far spread out.

 

[DaBruinz]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/04/12/patriots_schedule_isnt_regular/

As Reiss points out:

Meanwhile, one of the most anticipated rematches -- the Patriots visiting the Colts in a replay of the AFC Championship game -- is scheduled for Sunday, Nov. 4, at 4:15 p.m. This marks the third straight year that the Patriots-Colts game will be played the first full weekend of November, which is part of the all-important TV ratings sweeps period.

During the previous threads regarding the opening weekend, someone here pointed out this very fact. That they felt the Pats/Colts Rivalry game would be in November during the sweeps.

 

[satz]

The league = All the owners .Kraft and Irsay are pretty powerfull owners and if trhe leagur has a issue ,then they have a issue.I think this is BS as kraft brought the pats for 175 million and in 13 yrs made it into a 1.1 billion dollar venture.trust me he does enjoy the dominance.

 

[Rob0729]

Solomon Wilcott said on Sirius NFL Radio that he believes that CBS demanded that they get that game this year. Almost every year it is the biggest AFC game of the year and every year CBS has to give it up to primetime football. They bought the AFC package and they never get this game. I think the league caved for this year.

Hey if you remember back to the early to mid-90s in the height of the Cowboys/San Fran rivalry, that was almost always a Sunday day game. I remember it used to always piss me off because we would always get the Giants' game locally.

 

[patsox23]

The schedules for both teams are brutal,at least on paper and if both teams are dominating the AFC again in that week in November I think some will be surprised (San Diego was the exception last year and joined the mix) .

The schedule makers and the league are hoping the mighty will fall and parity will return to the AFC like the NFC is now.

The schedule is pretty much COMPLETELY pre-determined. There's no way the NFL can "try" to make it harder or easier for anyone. There's a system in place for how the sked gets established, so it is, for the most part, just a crap-shoot as to how hard or easy one team's slate of games is.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I don't think there is any conspiracy at all.

The Colts won the SB, therefore they SHOULD have the toughest schedule this year. However, they supposedly got the 5th toughest ( http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2830466 ), so I'm not sure they are even being picked on.

The Patriots got the 3rd toughest schedule and was the 4th best team in terms of how far they made it in the playoffs with season record breaking the ties. In reality, we all know that they were at least the 2nd best team in the league (unless you want argue that SD was actually better and we were lucky to beat them).

I think the conspiracy (if you HAVE to have one at all) is that SD and NO got such easy schedules (at least on paper).

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

There WAS parity last year, no one gave the saints jets or ravens a snowballs chance in hell at making the play offs last year, the teams expected to dominate the Giants, Bengals, Denver, Miami, Pittsburgh didn't. How much more parity do they need, just because there are teams that have been consistently good this decade doesn't mean there isn't parity, remember San Diego is only 3 seasons removed from having the #1 pick in the draft and Chicago wasn't good until '05. Theres plenty of parity in this league its just that there are elite organization just like every decade, this decade will probably be remembered most for the Pats, Colts, Eagles, and Pittsburgh (depending on how the Tomlin era starts off) Granted there are still 3 years to go. But this rivalry will clearly be the most memorable aspect of this decade of football. There isn't even a player vs. player rivalry in any sport today or in the past 20 years that compares to Manning vs. Brady in my opinion.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

There WAS parity last year, no one gave the saints jets or ravens a snowballs chance in hell at making the play offs last year, the teams expected to dominate the Giants, Bengals, Denver, Miami, Pittsburgh didn't. How much more parity do they need, just because there are teams that have been consistently good this decade doesn't mean there isn't parity, remember San Diego is only 3 seasons removed from having the #1 pick in the draft and Chicago wasn't good until '05. Theres plenty of parity in this league its just that there are elite organization just like every decade, this decade will probably be remembered most for the Pats, Colts, Eagles, and Pittsburgh (depending on how the Tomlin era starts off) Granted there are still 3 years to go. But this rivalry will clearly be the most memorable aspect of this decade of football. There isn't even a player vs. player rivalry in any sport today or in the past 20 years that compares to Manning vs. Brady in my opinion.

Exactly, and I think "the League" realizes this... the attempts to tweak parity are ongoing but minor, and I don't think the schedule is being tweaked in that way. The owners do not compete with each other; they are businessmen, and business partners in the League itself. They compete with other programming, or specifically, against other sports.

Parity is good business, sure. But "Parity" means, for the most part, that on a given year, say, the Texans can be this year's Saints, etc. Are there cities where fans have absolutely no reason to root for their team? You might say Houston, but any moves they make are lauded there, or Washington, where everyone I know thinks they can go back to their playoffs, or Phoenix, but people there think they're "one or two components away from..." Etc. I think the league has the level of parity needed to give us all (mostly false) hope each season.

I also think contained dynasties have been accepted as a feature of the level of parity the league can impose. They are story lines. It's only when the sport becomes boring because "Everybody knows team X is going to win it" that a dynasty threatens ticket sales and TV contracts.

The biggest threat to the league right now is more conference disparity than anything if you ask me. You remember the bad old days when it was the NFC on top? You remember the hopelessness as time and again the Bills tried to represent, and got swatted down? Well, it's getting to be almost that way, going the other direction (except with no Bills equivalent as the NFC's regular sacrificial lamb.) This might actually help defray that threat, since the "any given Sunday" rule psychologically fits for a Bears or Eagles or Panthers fan, even "fan for a game" fans. Not so much if you were pulling for the Bills in the 90s.

PFnV

 

[carolinatony]

There may be parity but but I wouldn't bet on a Browns/Lions SB in my lifetime.

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

well its hard to account for ****ty ownership.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Really perceptive thread. As I think about it, I look back on the 70's and remember how much I resented the Cowboys and Steelers. Then in the 80's, I hated the 49'ers and Redskins. When I was a (really) young kid, it was the Packers. So, I guess this says that the Patriots and C@!^s have joined pretty elite company. I've said out here often that I don't think we appreciate the full extent of what the Patriots have accomplished over the last six years. This wasn't supposed to happen again, after the cap and free agency. What the heck, let's rub it in and win another one anyway!!!

 

[QuiGon]

The first biggest thing is the fact the Patriots and Colts DON'T meet in a primetime affair for the first time in years,Does the league think its time to get rid of this type of near annual game in the national spotlight? or is the tough schedule for both of the teams a concideration in them thinking one of these teams will not be in contention at that time and the game therfore would not be as exciting as usual?.

On the contrary. IMHO, I think what happened was CBS went to the NFL and said "Listen up, you (censored) (censored)... we are getting (censored) sick and tired of getting (censored) (censored) out of access to the (censored) Pats-Colts game, which is annually one of the best (censored) matchups of the season."

So they gave the game to CBS to broadcast to a national audience the first Sunday of November sweeps.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

That is not the case at all. People like to see rivalies. Yankees-Red Sox? Lakers-Celtics? Bulls-Pistons? This is what generates higher ratings in the regular and post season. I'm surprised the Pats-Colts matchup isn't primetime, but I assume CBS did whatever they could to keep that game.

 

[dhamz]

The schedules for both teams are brutal,at least on paper and if both teams are dominating the AFC again in that week in November I think some will be surprised (San Diego was the exception last year and joined the mix) .

The schedule makers and the league are hoping the mighty will fall and parity will return to the AFC like the NFC is now.

While an interesting theory, it isn't the case. Who you play in a particular season is set years in adavnce with the exception of a couple games which are 100% dependent on where you finish the prior year. You finish on top in the standings and those couple games are going to be against division winners. There are 14 games on the 2008 and 2009 schedule for the Pats/Colts are already set in stone.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I think the rivalry sells tickets but if you ask Goodell or any previous commisioner the MAIN goal in the NFL like in all of sports is parity in the league where every team has a chance to win it all,It sells more tickets,merchandise,TV ratings ect: - Of course thats in all of sports - The league office IMO truly hates when a few teams out of the whole league truly dominate the others in talent and tradition.

Aside from New England,San Diego,Indianapolis and New Orleans and Chicago the other 27 teams really never had a chance to even sniff a championship in 2006 - I think it broadens a bit in 2007 and going forward.

Parity is not so bad,It keeps things interesting and in perspective although I am sure ALL of us here want to see New England dominate EVERYONE else EVERY year,Thats why we are fans.

i think there is parity in the nfl its just the pats have brady and the colts have manning take brady off the pats and we are a 10and 6 wild card time that loses in the frist rond take manning off the colts and there a 8and8 team