Welcome to PatsFans.com

Will Parity be Enhanced with the New CBA?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by patriot lifer, Jul 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    As we've seen in previous seasons, some teams would max out the respective years' salary cap while other teams did not. Big market teams such as Dallas, New England, and Washington would freely spend more than teams who were more miserly in spending habits due to simple economics. With the salary cap reigned in, it can make salary cap maximization more reachable. Granted salary cap optimization will always be an art and science that some front offices artfully manipulate while others flounder.

    In addition, players in the first round may have greater mobility to move from team to team as they exit their rookie contracts sooner. The free flow of player capital via free agency may compound this effect of increased parity and contention of more NFL teams.

    This all being said, a monumental and tidal change in parity is unlikely, but some effect is a possibility. It has happened that teams have transformed from "worst-to-first" in the past, but perhaps bad teams won't be so mired in mediocrity for long spans of time. High revenue teams can't exploit a high ceiling in the salary cap, plus more teams will find top draft picks obtainable sooner, which will all-in-all feed into a diffusion of NFL talent more evenly between teams.


    What insights and musings does everyone have? Does anyone see it play out this way, or even the opposite? Or no change at all?
  2. sbpatfan

    sbpatfan Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,930
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The contract max length change doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things. It affects (EDIT) 32 players. I don't understand why people are making a big deal about it (actually, one one person is - but still).
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2011
  3. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Yeah, the primary difference would definitely be with the salary cap reduction. Obviously not having 6-year rookie contracts will have some impact but not nearly as much.
  4. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I think it's a little early to assess the far reaching effects of a CBA we don't know all the details on yet. That said, a salary cap is a natural enhancement to potential parity but what seperates the men from the boys consistently is savvy ownership and management who understand how to work within whatever system the CBA ultimately dictates.

    And I don't really think you will see anything more from the rookie cap than a reduction in wasted salary (40-55% estimated) that hopefully leads to better compensation not for the superstars but for the heart and soul veterans during and after their careers. Few 6 rookie year deals which had already been limited to top 16 draftees have been signed in the last couple of years as it is.
  5. Sciz

    Sciz PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,093
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    If anything, I think it will separate the teams that can manage their cap well from the teams that can't even more.
  6. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Definitely true. We won't have JaMarcus Russells running around collecting tons of cash that should be going to those deserving. It's much more meritocratic.
  7. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    I dont know if it is possible to have more parity.
  8. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,755
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ratings:
    +70 / 3 / -1

    My Jersey:

    Unless it's set up in such a way that the best QBs start swapping teams or teams legitimately can't keep top players, I doubt parity will be impacted much. I doubt either of those will be the case in the longterm.
  9. lamafist

    lamafist Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Really?

    I'd say that not having the Colts, Patriots or Steelers representing the AFC in 9 of the next 10 Super Bowls would be a start.

    (Not that I'm complaining about the Patriots part.)
  10. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,732
    Likes Received:
    45
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #50 Jersey
    That is a result of team management. Can you really fault those teams for having excellent management that has put together amazing teams under the salary cap system?

    What we will see is several teams forces to spend more money in the short term than they have recently. Teams like Tampa, Philly, Cincy. That will take some talent away from teams like the Pats, Steelers and Colts. But, in the long run, it's been proven that spending money doesn't guarantee anything (Thank you, Dan Snyder).
  11. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The patriots, steelers, colts, chargers and the ravens have dominated the AFC for a decade and it is NOT possible to have more parity????

    Perhaps we need to define parity. Do all the teams have approximately equal chance of making the playoffs and Super Bowl each year?

    Personally, I don't want more parity. But then my team is one of the dominant teams.

  12. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Half of the playoffs teams each year are out the next year.
    The PAtriots, Colts and Steelers are successful because they are run better. You can't make rules to overcome better management within whatever the rules are.
  13. Frezo

    Frezo Rookie

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,431
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #50 Jersey
    Yes

    The league cannot create parity. It can only put rules in place to foster it. You can lead a horse to water...
  14. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    The NFCS had a multi year string of the last place team finsihing in first the next year.
    Playoff teams turn over by 50%each year. Many teams go worst to first.
    There are select well run teams that are successful and select poor run teams that are not. You cant make rules to change that.

    In the last 10 years, 7 of 30 teams won more than 90 games (better than 9-7 average) and only 4 averaged more than 10.
    9 lost more than 90 (avg season worse than 7-9) and only 3 lost more than 100.

    On avg
    4 teams better than 10-6
    3 teams 9-7 to 10-6
    16 teams between 9-7 and 7-9
    6 teams betwen 7-9 and 6-10
    3 teams worse than 6-10

    As far as the playoffs,
    29 of 32 have made the playoffs
    of those 29
    1 made it once
    7 twice
    6 3 times
    5 4 times
    2 5 times
    and 8 more than half the time
    None have made it every year

    When there are playoff slots for 37.5% of the teams, and 15 have made the playoffs more than 37.5% and 17 less, it doesnt get much closer.

    Yes, I dont know how you could create rules that result in more parity.
  15. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Excatly, and what they have done has created about as much parity as you can expect when management and human decisions are involved.
  16. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    And over that exact same timespan, 10 different NFC teams have been to those 10 Super Bowls. And 7 different teams won those 10 Super Bowls. So I'd say that's some pretty good parity.

    Regardless, you're looking at the results and seeing 3 teams dominate the AFC over the past decade and saying "that's not parity". Parity is the system, not the results. And the system is such that every team competes on a level playing field.
  17. lamafist

    lamafist Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Ah, see, to me, based on how the word parity has been used in science and math before being applied to sports, I would have to disagree -- parity is an observable quality and would be more applicable to the results than the system. That's just my take, though.

    Also, I don't disagree that the Pats, Colts and Steelers have largely earned their dominance by being some of the best run organizations in the league.

    I'm just saying, even if half of the teams that made the playoffs one year are out the next, that still makes the previous year's playoff teams more than twice as likely to make the playoffs than teams that didn't. In the NFL, a team's previous-season Pythagorean expected win total is still a relatively strong predictor for the next season's record, and the variation in team's average win total doesn't resemble what you'd see via random distribution.

    Of course, these, to me, are good things. I think the NFL's reached a goal more desirable than real parity, which is team mobility on the low end. Teams don't have to spend too long in "rebuilding mode" before they can really contend. "Worst to first" teams have become more commonplace, without much of a corresponding rise in "first to worst" teams.

    I suppose, if one really wanted to encourage more true parity, there are adjustments to the NFL system that could be made. One could, for example, set a team's salary cap on a sliding scale based on previous year's win total. Or have the number of draft picks a teams gets, either instead of or in addition to the location, be determined by worst record. Have teams drafting in the early part of each round able to sign rookies to longer contracts.

    I don't think any of these ideas would really improve the NFL, but they would increase parity.
  18. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  19. Gwedd

    Gwedd PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,896
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No Mood
    In reality, parity really hasn't been that effective in the league, and I doubt never will be.

    See, no matter what rules are put into place, the coach who understands those rules, and understands the abilities and limits of his players will always win championships.

    Fighter pilots understand situational awareness, in the same way that Coach preaches situational football. They understand that the key to winning isn't so much understanding the rules, but understanding your own strengths and weaknesses, and the tendencies of the other guy(s) in certain situations. For example, the first US kill of a North Korean Mig-15 jet fighter was by a pilot flying a Navy WWII-era Propeller-driven Corsair fighter. That pilot knew his plane inside out, what it could and couldn't do. He knew what his enemy's tendencies were, and he exploited them.

    That's what Coach does every week, every season. Understands what his team can and can't do, what the other side's tendencies are based upon down & distance, time left, score, weather, wind direction, sun, etc.

    So, bring on the rules changes, bring on the salary caps, etc. All that makes for a lot of interesting speculation amongst writers, pundits and fans, and that's fine. But it really doesn't effect the good teams that much at all.

    respects,
  20. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,798
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +24 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Everyone's overly focused on a salary cap and not paying enough attention to a potential salary floor - supposedly set at 89% of the cap - I think setting a salary floor would tend have an impact to foster increased parity.

    How much?

    Tough to say... it would increase the amount some teams spend and maybe increase competition for players - but I don't suspect it will be a big impact on the Patriots anyways... we've seen plenty of "expensive" teams suck around the NFL and I suspect that will continue.

    There's been a great many other factors fostering parity to date and we can see how often the Patriots are mediocre in that system.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2011
  21. lamafist

    lamafist Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  22. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.

    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  23. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  24. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011
  25. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  26. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  27. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,845
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  28. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    19,975
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +28 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.

  29. TheGodInAGreyHoodie

    TheGodInAGreyHoodie Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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.
  30. 52decleetzu

    52decleetzu Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    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)
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page