What ever happened to all the talk about 'parity' ?

[njpatsfan]

A few years ago, you couldn't read any NFL article or hear any NFL TV report without the media paying homage to 'parity' - a 'logical' result of the 'salary cap era'.

Now you never hear it.

Did it ever exist ? If it did, what happened to it ?



My personal opinion is that it was a myth created by the media idiots in 2002 to explain why all their prognostications (e.g. 'greatest show on turf') were wrong, and why no one could predict the Pats winning.

 

[pats1]

I've heard it lately as an excuse for the Patriots going 4-4 early.

 

[italian pat patriot]

the Patriots were able to stop 'parity' as they have been something special in this era...

they have done what many teams (i.e: Ravens, Bucs, Rams) were unable to do: repeat.

but i find the Nfl trying to create a 'parity', with the salary cap, a good way to try to put every team in the position to win

this is the reason why i love the Nfl and i think the Nfl is the best possible sport in all the world

 

[Pats726]

The theory is a good one and keeps teams from the top and bottom a LOT closer than in any of the leagues....That being said, this year more than others, the bad teams and good teams were known early in the season and really did not change. There were some that were battling early for playoff spots..and that hasn't changed. The only team that seemed to rise from the ashes has been the Vikings and they are falling short. Parity is a good thought..the NFL has the right idsea. It doesn't rule out stupid owners who overpay, make bad decisions and never get better.

 

[RayClay]

Before the Pats run, there was a lot of "worst to first" type scenarios as teams struggled with the cap and lost their most valuable players soon after succesful seasons.

When the Pats took half a team and a bunch of street free agents and kicked ass, (2001), they redefined what it takes to win.

As they mastered the cap, some teams followed their blueprint, (Pittsburgh, Philly).

Some like the Colts win the old way, that is drafting a few high paid "stars".

Some teams that just don't "get it" continue pinning their hopes on a few Bonus Babies, while neglecting the team concept. "Collecting talent", if you will.

 

[JoeSixPat]

It's actually a very interesting question that can be answered a lot of different ways...

... certainly, random injuries to star players affect what might be parity in a "perfect" NFL

just as certainly, having a wise GM and salary capologist sets teams apart

Some are actually beginning to think that they system that "rewards" the worst teams by giving them the #1 pick itself runs counter to parity.

The thinking is that the #1 & #2 draft choices command long term, guaranteed top dollar contracts, but offer little guarantee that the players will pan out... and indeed they often don't.

Make a few mistakes as a team and year after year you'll find yourself tying up large sums of the cap on numerous top 5 picks when "better" teams consistently get better value from their most costly picks

This notion is catching on, and increasingly you hear GMs lamenting their desire to trade out of the top few picks but finding very few takers - primarilly for this reason.

 

[shakadave]

Here's my take:

The salary cap equalized the playing field. But to be a great team, you have to have skillful management to get the most out of a fixed budget. The idiot franchises of the NFL (e.g. Redskins) now have a harder time than ever; they lack the mental skill to put together a competitive team under these rules. Consequently, there is actually less parity (in a way) than there used to be, since the dumb got dumber and the smart (e.g. New England, Philly) now have a competitive advantage they didn't have when the idiots could just buy up talent.

P.S. The Colts are WAY better with the salary cap than everybody thinks!

 

[Mike the Brit]

This thread is based on a false premise ...

... of course parity exists.

Now that Green Bay and the Eagles are out of play-off contention, there will be NO team that has been to the play-offs every year for the last five years.

Just think about it! That means that in a league of 32, no one has finished in the top 33% every year for five years. Compare it with soccer -- some teams in the UK haven't been out of the top five in 10 years.

A few years ago, you couldn't read any NFL article or hear any NFL TV report without the media paying homage to 'parity' - a 'logical' result of the 'salary cap era'.

Now you never hear it.

Did it ever exist ? If it did, what happened to it ?



My personal opinion is that it was a myth created by the media idiots in 2002 to explain why all their prognostications (e.g. 'greatest show on turf') were wrong, and why no one could predict the Pats winning.

 

[Willie55]

If all front offices were equal there would be parity.

 

[alamo]

P.S. The Colts are WAY better with the salary cap than everybody thinks!

Absolutely, in part because Irsay's finances have kept them well below the limit. As more TV money comes in and the Colts look so close to glory, he'll authorize higher spending.

That having been said, they will still have the same tough decisions down the road that the Patriots have faced. They spent little on defense until recently, with Feeney's contract manageable. But as their defense actually has some stars and Feeney gets to the point in his career where he can demand to be paid, they will find that a few more multimillion-dollar contracts eat up the cap quickly. My guess is (assuming there is still a salary cap) they will push a lot off into the future like Dallas of the 90s, in order to take advantage of Manning's prime years.

 

[Michael]

I still here it talked about. Madden has mentioned it a few times this year.

 

[onegameatatime]

The salary cap should tend to equalize teams over time as good teams lose good players. Ironically, I believe this makes it more likely to have 15-1 teams, because a really good team will have a lot of middle of the road competition.

I believe that weak teams may have a better chance now because as the skill level increases, it's hard for players to have a big edge over other players.

The schedule fix where each #1 gets the other #1s guarantees losses for the previous year's #1 teams, so makes repeating more challenging, although this year, it looks like 4/6 will repeat playoff appearances in the AFC.

Putting these factors together, I think the rules tend to promote a strong middle, allow really good teams to excel in one year, but make it really hard to keep it going. In addition to the Pats recently who have been at the highest level, we should also credit Pitt and Denver and Philly where they have been very good overall for a long time.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

... of course parity exists.

Now that Green Bay and the Eagles are out of play-off contention, there will be NO team that has been to the play-offs every year for the last five years.

Just think about it! That means that in a league of 32, no one has finished in the top 33% every year for five years. Compare it with soccer -- some teams in the UK haven't been out of the top five in 10 years.

Brilliant! (In both the classical sense and current usage.) :singing: :rocker: