PDA

View Full Version : Is there really parity in the NFL?



BlitzburghRockCity
07-05-2012, 08:59 AM
Listening to the Sirius this morning and the topic was, is there really parity in the NFL today? Got me thinking a bit, which is not something easily accomplished in the morning that's for sure.

Seems to be the catch phrase that every NFL analyst loves to throw around and probably what makes Roger Goodell sleep well at night, parody in the league. The handful of upper echelon teams is not overwhelming to the point that nobody has a chance. There is no decidely better conference year in and year out. Every team has play makers capable of taking over a game.

Or is there?

From an AFC perspective in the last 10 years there have been really 3 teams that have represented the conference in the Super Bowl; Steelers, Patriots, and the Colts. The Ravens won it in 2000 and have been in contention since, the Jets here and there, and the Chargers always find some way to fail. Every year though aren't we always talking about the same teams in the playoffs? Throw in a wildcard here and there like Bengals last year but when it comes right down to it the same teams are always in the mix come the post season.

I can see the argument from an NFC perspective, other than the Packers and Giants, it's been a mix of all sorts of teams making the playoffs each year and eventually the Super Bowl. The Eagles, Saints, Cardinals, Seattle, Chicago have all been there recently.

Black@Gold Forever32
07-05-2012, 09:35 AM
I think there is parity when it comes to teams being competitive but if you want to win a Super Bowl I think a team needs an elite QB and a play-making defense........Looking at those teams that have won the Super Bowl (including the NFC) the last few years those teams has an elite QB and play-making defense......Now the Steelers had a true great D in 2008......But teams like the Saints, Pack, Colts, really didn't have all-time great defenses but those defenses did make big plays at key times....

K Train
07-05-2012, 09:38 AM
i think the parody lies in teams being able to quickly turn around after abysmal seasons. weve seen in this decade teams really go from pathetically awful to first place in their division. the saints, cardnials, and lions come to mind....but think about the panthers, saints, bucs, and falcons...all have had top 5 picks in a season, but 3 have been to the superbowl and the falcons have made several NFCC appearences. These teams arent as consistent as the steelers, colts, and patriots have been but rebuilding doesnt take as long anymore

LarryNJ
07-05-2012, 10:29 AM
The commissioner has you all confused. He makes the NFL a parody.

You should be using the word parity! :)

Black@Gold Forever32
07-05-2012, 10:35 AM
The commissioner has you all confused. He makes the NFL a parody.

You should be using the word parity! :)

nice catch...it was early when I posted this morning...lol

Raleigh Steel
07-05-2012, 10:45 AM
it's not about the outcome but the opportunity! (boy could i go on a political rant right now, but i wont :nono: ) every team has the same chance, what they do with that chance is a different story.

if you draft poorly, overpay for free agents that don't pan out, hire poor coaches, or don't give coaches enough time/too much time, then you don't win.

the teams who are consistently in contention are the teams with the best front offices, that make the best decisions. thankfully the steelers are one of them.

steelersbabex25
07-05-2012, 11:11 AM
There was actually a chapter about this that I had to read about in my history of sport in America class (of course it was obviously titled "Parity in the NFL" :lol:) Talked about the Packers being dominant for decades, then the Steelers, then the Cowboys, and then a few years later the Patriots. I don't know about today though. I think we've seen some teams who should never win the superbowl get pretty far or even win (i.e the Giants), but in terms of complete equality, I don't think so. The teams that make the more money and have the bigger fan bases obviously seem to do better on the field. Just is the way it has been for a long time.

LarryNJ
07-05-2012, 11:35 AM
Unlike MLB or NBA in the NFL everyone has an equal playing field. There is very little separating most of the teams. Like Raleigh stated the difference is in the front office. The teams with good leadership will remain a couple steps ahead of all the others.

K Train
07-05-2012, 11:43 AM
There was actually a chapter about this that I had to read about in my history of sport in America class (of course it was obviously titled "Parity in the NFL" :lol:) Talked about the Packers being dominant for decades, then the Steelers, then the Cowboys, and then a few years later the Patriots. I don't know about today though. I think we've seen some teams who should never win the superbowl get pretty far or even win (i.e the Giants), but in terms of complete equality, I don't think so. The teams that make the more money and have the bigger fan bases obviously seem to do better on the field. Just is the way it has been for a long time.
the cap makes it so the teams that make the most money do just that, make the most money. Revenue, Profitability, popularity, and value have no effect on the talent level or competitive nature of a team.

especialyl now with teams being forced to spend 90% of the cap (next year i believe) the cheaper owners are going to have to spend much more, the mike browns of the world cant be cheap anymore

steelersbabex25
07-05-2012, 11:54 AM
the cap makes it so the teams that make the most money do just that, make the most money. Revenue, Profitability, popularity, and value have no effect on the talent level or competitive nature of a team.

especialyl now with teams being forced to spend 90% of the cap (next year i believe) the cheaper owners are going to have to spend much more, the mike browns of the world cant be cheap anymore

You think it's just a coincidence that teams like the Steelers and Patriots with huge fan bases do so well year after year but teams like the Panthers and the Jags with no fan base at all do terribly year after year? There has to be some correlation there.

K Train
07-05-2012, 12:06 PM
You think it's just a coincidence that teams like the Steelers and Patriots with huge fan bases do so well year after year but teams like the Panthers and the Jags with no fan base at all do terribly year after year? There has to be some correlation there.

the panthers and jags are expansion teams, the panthers have appeared in a superbowl and the jags have been a playoff team. thats pretty damn good for a young franchise, the texans had their growing pains too. Jacksonville was a terrible place to put an NFL team, that doesnt stop them from competing though that stops them from selling tickets

the steelers have bee great for the last ten years but there was an awful lot of mediocrity bewteen the early 80s and the early 2000s

the browns and lions are historically horrid teams, but they have a TON of fans, whats the correlation there?

im pretty sure the redskins are the most valuable NFL team, maybe second to the cowboys but what has that gotten them?

also id say the only "huge" fanbases are the steelers and cowboys, a case could be made for the giants and niners too, NE had such poor fans before the 2000s and thats with them being an entire region, not just a city or a state

LarryNJ
07-05-2012, 12:16 PM
You think it's just a coincidence that teams like the Steelers and Patriots with huge fan bases do so well year after year but teams like the Panthers and the Jags with no fan base at all do terribly year after year? There has to be some correlation there.

What about the Redskins? They have to be in the top 5 of fan bases. (how is a fan base measured?) Raiders, & Chiefs also have huge fan bases, even the Browns have a big fan base and they have sucked for the better part of 50 years. Than you have the Ravens who only have about 100,000 fans :lol: total and they have been consistently good.

BlitzburghRockCity
07-05-2012, 12:34 PM
You still can't buy championships no matter how much money you have, Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder are proof of that. Those teams have been a disaster for so long that even when they are competitive they can't finish the deal when it counts. I'll take a top flight front office with a low budget any day over a team with tons of money and a mismanaged front office.

steelersbabex25
07-05-2012, 01:10 PM
What about the Redskins? They have to be in the top 5 of fan bases. (how is a fan base measured?) Raiders, & Chiefs also have huge fan bases, even the Browns have a big fan base and they have sucked for the better part of 50 years. Than you have the Ravens who only have about 100,000 fans :lol: total and they have been consistently good.

They're awful because they have an awful owner.

LarryNJ
07-05-2012, 01:13 PM
They're awful because they have an awful owner.

Exactly! :) It all starts and ends in the front office. Everything else is equal! :)

Black@Gold Forever32
07-05-2012, 01:50 PM
To add to the Panthers and Jags....They did make it to their conference title games in the 2nd year of their existence.........Panthers lost the Packers and the Jags lost to the Pats.......The Jags did remain a consistent play-off contender after their title game loss and really just in the last 5 years have fallen off......The Panthers have been up and down but mostly down.......

The Texans took 10 years to finally make the post-season but that largely due to the Colts being the juggernaut of their division for the entire decade and the Texans missing bad on David Carr........Missing on a QB especially number 1 overall takes years to overcome.....

The Browns since returning in 1999 as an expansion team have been really bad......Bad drafts and being in the same division with the Steelers/Ravens have been big factors.....

But its much easier for an NFL expansion team to be competitive quick thanks to parity in the NFL today.......

ChucktownSteeler
07-05-2012, 03:23 PM
I believe the chance for parity is there, but not guaranteed. Better organizations are always going to rise to the top.

C-town

BlitzburghRockCity
07-06-2012, 12:19 PM
The Jags built their team right, whereas the Panthers went for all veterans and ended up getting old all at the same time. That was it for them after that. The Jags just couldn't hold things together though and that fan base there that never shows up for the games doesn't help matters either.

CowherPower
07-10-2012, 01:33 PM
I just hope we don't do any more expansion teams. 32 is enough right now and there's plenty of competition around the league to keep things interesting for a long time.

ChucktownSteeler
07-10-2012, 06:10 PM
I just hope we don't do any more expansion teams. 32 is enough right now and there's plenty of competition around the league to keep things interesting for a long time.

I wouldn't mind seeing a little contraction myself, thinks of the Jags and Seahags to go would be a good start.

Real Deal Steel
07-10-2012, 07:34 PM
You still can't buy championships no matter how much money you have, Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder are proof of that. Those teams have been a disaster for so long that even when they are competitive they can't finish the deal when it counts. I'll take a top flight front office with a low budget any day over a team with tons of money and a mismanaged front office.


Well said. Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones fit the classic saying, " A fool with money". LOL. Got all the money but don't know how to use it properly.

Real Deal Steel
07-10-2012, 07:36 PM
I don't know so much about contracting. I think we need to reallocate a couple of teams who's town can't support the team properly. Like the Jags and like the Rams. To Los Angeles.

Nolrog
07-11-2012, 06:15 PM
Listening to the Sirius this morning and the topic was, is there really parity in the NFL today?

Yes. Every team has the same resources (in terms of salary cap, drafting slots based on record, etc.) to work with. The problem is that some teams don't use those resources as well as others, and are consistently left behind.

This is very much unlike baseball where you have teams like the Yankees spends twice as much as the bottom 21 teams and around 20 million more than the bottom 3 teams combined.

Real Deal Steel
07-11-2012, 07:51 PM
Management and front office personnel are the difference. I'm thankful for ours. :)