This is so true...NBA vs NFL

[Bill Lee]

These are indicative of ownership's power over labor, which leads to Goodell. I'd prefer a soft cap in the NFL with a luxury tax and players capturing a larger share of the revenue over the ostensible field-leveling that a hard salary cap provides.

That's one way of looking at it.

The NFL owners and players agreed to a hard cap. You can look at it as the owners were in a stronger bargaining position so they got what they wanted, or you can look at it as the owners and the union agreed it'd be best for both parties if there was a hard cap tied to a percentage of the total revenue of the league, because it leads to a more profitable league that benefits both players and owners.

There's a lot more going on than these two statements contains but I'm in the later camp. The cap and many related measures such as a minimum salary spend and revenue sharing promotes parity which makes for more interesting games and a healthier league.

In a similar time frame where the NFL players and unions were agreeing to salary caps, MLB players and unions were fighting things out in court. These days MLB superstars are signing huge contracts but IMHO it's hard to argue MLB is better off for it. There are so many teams that are not a factor right from the first day of the season, just like international soccer, and it makes for countless dreary games/matches.

 

[TommyD4207]

There's parity that you can quickly rise from the bottom to the top

Really, who? Name the team that has quickly risen from the bottom to the top in the NFL since the merger. You can say "New England", and I'll say "They were in the playoffs 3 of 5 years, and made a Super Bowl, before they won it all in 2001".

5 seasons ago, both Golden State and Cleveland were 2 of the worst 3 teams in the NBA, and were in the lottery. 3 seasons ago, Cleveland was in the lottery, and Golden State was a 6th seed.

 

[SalemPats]

Really, who? Name the team that has quickly risen from the bottom to the top in the NFL since the merger. You can say "New England", and I'll say "They were in the playoffs 3 of 5 years, and made a Super Bowl, before they won it all in 2001".

5 seasons ago, both Golden State and Cleveland were 2 of the worst 3 teams in the NBA, and were in the lottery. 3 seasons ago, Cleveland was in the lottery, and Golden State was a 6th seed.

Look at last season, cowboys with a backup
Qb went from less than 6 wins to a playoff bye, lions were projected in the bottom and made the playoffs, raiders were picked by most to not make the playoffs and neither were the dolphins. In football if you were bad last year you can rebuild and be competitive more quickly. In basketball typically you are bad for a long time. Isn't there a stat in basketball that only in the last 25 years has a non top 4 seed made the finals

And also take a look at the rams and saints who went from a bottom feeder to a sb win

 

[TommyD4207]

To be fair, part of their problem is structural: the NFL has a hard salary cap and something like four times as many players per team.

It's this, and it's also the Larry Bird rights which skew things.

In the NBA, teams stay together longer (unless you have a **** owner like Dan Gilbert), simply because you can spend over the cap to keep your best players. If you draft really well (like Golden State with Curry, Thompson and Green), make smart FA signings (Iguodala, Livingston), and get lucky with a bump in the cap (Durant), there's no reason you can't have a top team for a decade.

The NFL's not set up that way.

It's a vanilla/chocolate/strawberry argument. Some like one, some like another. But 'parity' is nonsense. The teams with the best owners/GMs win in both leagues.

 

[Bill Lee]

Perhaps of interest: Which Sports League has the Most Parity?

2.) The NBA has always been the least competitive of the 4 American Sports

Despite having similar salary cap restrictions as both the NHL and NFL, the NBA has always had a consistently higher Gini Coefficient of title odds, even before the massive upswing this season. This is likely because the high scoring nature of the sport of basketball lends itself to less variance in results combined with the presence of a maximum contract creating competitive imbalance (Al Horford makes the same amount as Lebron).

 

[TommyD4207]

Look at last season, cowboys with a backup
Qb went from less than 6 wins to a playoff bye, lions were projected in the bottom and made the playoffs, raiders were picked by most to not make the playoffs and neither were the dolphins. In football if you were bad last year you can rebuild and be competitive more quickly. In basketball typically you are bad for a long time. Isn't there a stat in basketball that only in the last 25 years has a non top 4 seed made the finals

And also take a look at the rams and saints who went from a bottom feeder to a sb win

Saints are an exception that proves the rule. But they did have the coach and QB in place. They're the 2004 Pistons.

St. Louis had a great coach and GM, drafted really well, signed Marshall Faulk, and became amazing for 5-7 years, before they lost their coach, GM, and their Owner started getting in the way. They're the OKC Thunder before Durant left.

Everyone had the Raiders in the playoffs last year, that's just disingenuous. They found a QB, had a decent coach (Check Del Rio's record if you don't believe me) and had drafted very well, showing steady improvement over three seasons.

Detroit wasn't the bottom of the barrel, they were 11-5 two years ago, and just missed the playoffs with a 7-9 season last year, before making it at 9-7. Looks to me like they're pretty much the same.

Also, when was the last time a non-Number 1 seed made the Super Bowl? Never mind a top 4. (hint: it was the Giants a decade ago)

The NBA has more playoff teams than the NFL as a percentage of teams, and the series format helps the better team advance over a one-and-done format. There's the slight chance for an upset in the NFL, whereas there really isn't one in the NBA (that's why they keep showing Mutumbo crying on the floor after beating Seattle 20 years ago, and that was a 5-game series, not 7).

Just because something happens once in a while (Saints 2009), doesn't mean it's the rule. NFL parity is an absolute myth that people have bought into, and the legions of 8-8 (borderline 8-seeds) teams buy in for hope, believing that they won't get run over by the Steelers or Seahawks every year.

 

[TommyD4207]

Perhaps of interest: Which Sports League has the Most Parity?

Yup, and I'm not arguing that the NBA is some sort of parity-filled league. It's not.

It's just that the NFL isn't some crazy-amazing-thrill ride every season. Of the 12 teams that make the playoffs this year, 8-10 of them will have been in the playoffs last year, at least 10 will have been in the playoffs at some point in the last three years, and fully half will have been in the playoffs at least 4 of the 5, if not all 5 of the last five years.

NFL Parity is a myth. That's why people jump on the Tennessees and Tampas in the off-season. Hoping that someone new will be in.

 

[SalemPats]

Saints are an exception that proves the rule. But they did have the coach and QB in place. They're the 2004 Pistons.

St. Louis had a great coach and GM, drafted really well, signed Marshall Faulk, and became amazing for 5-7 years, before they lost their coach, GM, and their Owner started getting in the way. They're the OKC Thunder before Durant left.

Everyone had the Raiders in the playoffs last year, that's just disingenuous. They found a QB, had a decent coach (Check Del Rio's record if you don't believe me) and had drafted very well, showing steady improvement over three seasons.

Detroit wasn't the bottom of the barrel, they were 11-5 two years ago, and just missed the playoffs with a 7-9 season last year, before making it at 9-7. Looks to me like they're pretty much the same.

Also, when was the last time a non-Number 1 seed made the Super Bowl? Never mind a top 4. (hint: it was the Giants a decade ago)

The NBA has more playoff teams than the NFL as a percentage of teams, and the series format helps the better team advance over a one-and-done format. There's the slight chance for an upset in the NFL, whereas there really isn't one in the NBA (that's why they keep showing Mutumbo crying on the floor after beating Seattle 20 years ago, and that was a 5-game series, not 7).

Just because something happens once in a while (Saints 2009), doesn't mean it's the rule. NFL parity is an absolute myth that people have bought into, and the legions of 8-8 (borderline 8-seeds) teams buy in for hope, believing that they won't get run over by the Steelers or Seahawks every year.

I enjoy basketball and don't want to make this into an NFL and NBA battle but in football you can rebuild a team because of the hard cap, shorter career span of Players and strength of schedule - the teams in football that are bad for a long time is more a function of poor management and then the system. In basketball one player has a bigger impact on a game so without a star player it's difficult to rebuild. The formation of super teams has not helped with parity

 

[patsfanincleveland]

The first half of that sentence is entirely subjective, the latter is simply untrue. There is plenty of objective evidence and statistics that bear out that the NFL is not the more popular product - or at the very least, if it is, certainly not "by a mile". Not to mention the popularity gap (should one exist) is closing, and quickly.

How do you get to that point?

A billion people watch the Super Bowl.

The worldwide gap is driven by the fact that people can play basketball worldwide and don't play our football. The NFL would be smart to drive that equation.

ESPN has doubled down on their hideous NBA commitment. That's what drives the worldwide NBA thing.

A few superstars hawking burgers or pop doesn't make for world dominance.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

The group Matt Chatham works for (Football by Football) just got notified that they can no longer use NFL footage