Since Rozelle and his people came up with the idea ,the NFL has attempted to achieve parity. The top draft choices are allotted to the poorest teams. If your team is bad you will get high draft choices year after year. Eventually everybody should have close to a 8 and 8 record. They also instituted revenue sharing to equalize the financial imbalances.
Two questions 1, Would football be more interesting if all the teams were about even. Or do we need a Yankees to hate and shoot at.
2. If everything else is equal,or close . are we are competing in management and coaching. Is that good for the sport.? Does ownership matter much?
Good questions. If only I had good answers.
I think that most fans are quite capable of hating some particular team without the added incentive of that team achieving any long-term dominance over the rest of the league. Rivalries are one factor that contributes to this phenomenon (I feel compelled here to offer up as evidence my deep and abiding revulsion with all things Cowboy - may they collectively spend eternity in a place warmer than comfortable.), but there are others. Some teams or owners just seen to rub people the wrong way. Take Al Davis and Dan Snyder, for instance: their detractors seem to be numerous and widely scattered, and hatred of their respective teams would seem to follow from that.
As far as ownership affecting the parity equation, I think the effect on a team of a bad owner is underestimated by all but the fans of teams with bad owners. Take the long-suffering Cardinals fans, for instance: I’d bet that they’re generally well aware that as long as Bidwill is in charge, that team is likely to suck. So while having great ownership doesn’t confer dynastic supremacy in the era of super-parity, having terrible ownership pretty much dooms a franchise to, at best, perennial mediocrity.
All in all, I’d say that Rozelle’s dream of parity been largely responsible for the marketing juggernaut that NFL football has become. While it may have diluted the quality of play in the NFL, it’s added an unpredictable quality to the season that I kind of like. Let’s keep it.
Your OP is a mess.
Parity certainly does exist; whether or not that is a good things remains a debate, which is usually framed like this:
PRO: Parity is great because it gives everyone hope that their team has a realistic shot at a title.
CON: Sure, every team has a chance, but at what price? The “football” being played today sucks balls; instead of a few great teams all we’re left with is a bunch of mediocre ones.
For your specific questions…
-
It depends on your definition of interesting, but generally yes, it is more interesting when more teams are competitive.
-
Coaching and ownership are exactly what it boils down to in today’s game. There is a reason that Arizona still struggles, while the Patriots continue to lead their division.
Personally, I am a huge fan of parity; I like both the salary cap and free agency in general. I would also very much like to see a coach’s cap also instituted in order to extend parity even further. (Though Dan Snyder continues to prove that throwing money at a problem is not a solution.)
I disagree with your assertion that “eventually everybody should have close to an 8-8 record.” Because of the way the NFL keeps track of salary cap expenditures, teams tend to go in cycles - they’ll shoot for a two or three year window in which they’re among the top few teams in the league. This window is followed by an inevitable downturn when the team’s salary cap is consumed by what’s known as “dead money” - signing bonuses already paid to players who are no longer with the team. When this happens, teams play rookies and inexpensive free agents; they jettison their aging stars to make room on the books for future talent. This low end of the cycle typically lasts for one or two years. How quickly a team goes through these cycles depends a lot on the GM and the way they structure their contracts.
Not all teams run in cycles - the Cardinals haven’t seen the upper end of the curve since ten years before they left St. Louis, for example - and injuries and surprise performances make the cycling a little less predictable. Still, with 32 teams going up or down year to year, the league isn’t moving toward 8-8 seasons all around. Instead, they’re trying to ensure that no particular franchise will be the league doormat year after year. Even with the salary cap and revenue sharing, there are some teams still go 14-2, and others will still go 3-13. The salary cap and revenue sharing are aimed at preventing any team from putting up that kind of record every year for a decade.
To answer your questions:
-
No, in the sense that (I think) you mean it - if every team were an “average” team, football would be less interesting than it is now. If you revise the question to say “Is football more interesting because of the steps the NFL has taken to encourage parity?,” than my answer is an unequivocal “yes.”
-
Ownership and coaching are huge in the NFL. Good head coaches are paid huge salaries, and top-of-the-line coordinators make millions. But no matter how good the GM or coach is on his own, they have to work together to build a winning team. A GM that wants to build a smash-mouth, three yards and a cloud of dust offense is going to get much better results from Norv Turner’s system than he would from Mike Martz. If you build a team that doesn’t play into your coach’s strengths, you’re spinning your wheels.
Ownership has another role as well - the way a GM structure contracts and acquire players is probably the main factor that influences how quickly a team cycles through the highs and lows, how long they can stay at the top of the league when they’re high, and how quickly they can recover when they’re low. A strong front office can create a team like the Patriots - they write contracts with an eye for the future rather than rewarding past performance, and they don’t overpay for players. A less astute front office might end up wasting first round draft picks on players that don’t pan out… and paying the price for years.
I do like Ellis Dee’s idea of a coaching cap. Do you have a detailed scheme for that in your head, or is it more of an abstract idea right now?
More abstract. I’d mirror the salary cap structure, but keep it separate from the salary cap. I can’t claim the idea, btw. I heard Cris Collinsworth mention it last year on Inside the NFL, and immediately agreed with him.
Excellent point about the cycles. Especially relevant is pointing out that the trend is not for all teams to approach .500, but rather to bounce back and forth with .500 being the longterm average.
This year Arizona has the talent to have a better record than they do. The team has had a remarkable ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The freakish loss against St. Louis and the choke against Chicago. Even today, the refs blew a couple of calls and the Cards were in the game until the end.
I think parity in the league is a good thing. You do end up with a lot of 8-8 teams, but I’d rather see that than a couple of 16-0 teams and some 0-16 teams.
It is also nice to have the variety in the playoffs and Super Bowl. I don’t think we’ll see dynasty teams any time in the future.
There will always be teams to hate, such as the Cowboys or the Raiders. For me, I’m glad that not every game on tv is the football equivalent of Red Sox/Yankees.
I hate parity. More and more, I’ve come to seriously consider that success and failure in pro sports is mainly luck, in which teams get hot and cold at crucial periods for reasons that are basically random (St. Louis baseball Cardinals World Champs, anyone?) , and even this possibility is enough to discourage my giving a shit who wins a championship or a game. Basically, I’m down to "Come on, Jets, get reeeeealll lucky this week,"which isn’t much to get excited over. I prefer the illusion that talent and character and intelligence and ability and instincts matter–if it’s luck, then who cares? The NFL’s “parity uber alles” policy just reinforces the predominance of luck, IMO, and therefore sucks.
Funny, with all the sports and their different models of salary structures (from little: baseball, to strict: football), I can point to things that I don’t like for all of them.
Also, I understand that a coach’s salary cap sounds good, but I doubt how much practical impact it may have. Hell, coordinators are getting paid heaping assloads of loot these days.
I like paraity as a concept and, I think, it is what makes every game so important to fans and players alike. There are no sure wins in this game, just ask the NY Giants!
However, what I would like to see changed is how teams deal with drafted players. It is a shame to watch a young guy mature and develop on your team and just as he is peaking… you have to trade him for Cap reasons. With rare exceptions a person is no longer associated with a team. It’s sad and dimishes fan loyalty somewhat.
I have played with the idea of regional draft choices. USC and UCLA players go to Raiders and 49ers. Michigan Michigan State and local colleges go to the Lions. That way some of the college rivalry would still exist.It would take some committe to split them up .but I think it would be a interesting idea.
The Player Draft and Salary Cap are designed to drive player’s salaries down. They make less money than they would in a free market. Talk of parity for those systems is just PR.
Rozelle’s parity system was the schedule. The top teams would play the other top teams in the next year’s schedule. The bottom teams would get an easier schedule.
Like who?
In football, it happens, but it’s not even close to baseball where for years, the Royals, Tigers, Pirates, and Brewers have simply been farm teams for the Yankees.
The cap is what makes that possible. It’s not perfect, but it’s not worse than what it used to be.
The cap enables teams to keep guys at a fair market value instead of sending them off to people who are able to pay “above” fair market value because of the size of the local market. Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones would own everyone right now if they were allowed to.
The Yanks have RUINED baseball as far as I’m concerned, and anything to keep football as far away from that as possible is OK in my book.
, they have gone through many coaches ,gms and players ,yet they stay at the bottom. Do we blame management or ownership.? If you give easier schedules to the low teams. give them revenue sharing and favor them with better draft choices are you rewarding incompetence. Because of the system Barry Sanders had to play in Detroit. His career was negatively affected by something out of his control.This is America ,he should be able to sell his services to the highest bidder.The rights of the league trump the rights of the players. Fair or not?
What is the impact of ownership on the sucess of a team.? The Lions have gone through a ton of coaches and GMs . The only constant is ownership. Do they impact ,or are they too far removed. The yankees and Mavericks have active owners. Does it help or hurt?
Umm the Tigers who just so happened to have just played in the World Series?
Given the awful contracts being thrown around lately in baseball (c.f. messers Lee,
Soriano, and Matthews), having the most money doesn’t mean you’re going to spend
it wisely. Soon someone will throw 80 million at Barry Zito, who IMHO is not much
better than average, while another team will sign someone else almost as good for
1 to 5 million.
Dad, I hate this idea. Certain parts of the country would be LOADED with players, and how would you split up the players within a state or the players that don’t belong to any region? Also, it would factor into future relocation and expansion.
You’re talking about a team who has dwelt in the sewer for years who got lucky in a couple short series. When is the last time KC or TB or Pitt even had a shot at the playoffs going into the season. TB might as well be a minor league team. I don’t mean it’s “slim”. It’s ZERO. That team is dead every single year before the season starts.
Over the course of the season, Detroit was 10 games over .500 against the Royals, and 12 games over .500 against the NL. They were under .500 against the AL East. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/standings/grid
Ask a Detroit fan about the Jeff Weaver deal to the Yanks a few years back. See if they think they’re on the same playing field.
This year, they were able to sneak in with a wild card birth. Then they get a couple wins against aged pitching. The Yanks have won the division for about 12 years straight now. The Braves on the division for, what, 15 years straight?
Look at what happens over a better measure of a team’s worth, a 162-game season. Baseball is so far away from parity, it’s not even funny, or fun.
Green Bay would be a third New York City team right now if the NFL were allowed to operate like baseball.
I am looking for a way to add some missing zing to football. When I was younger Monday night football was a happening. Something is occurring that is diminishing the games appeal. I can not put my finger directly on it. I still watch but some people cant walk far enough from a Nintendo to actually watch a game.
Ford bought the Lions in 64 for 3.5 mill. They are worth hundreds of millions now. Pro ball is a money making machine. Yet some owners screw it all up. If you don’t crank out a new stadium for the owners every 20 years or so ,they move. Should the teams be locked in their present locations by the league.
Some owners might screw up their franchises but not the NFL. Football does not need any more “zing”. Every single other sport WISHES they were the NFL. they get billions of dollars just for the right to broadcast their games.
Is your argument that “when I was younger Monday night football was a happening”?
I get fired up every Sunday, and most Mondays. The past few weeks, pretty much the whole nation has seen
Bears-Giants
Colts-Cowboys
Pats-Colts
KC-Denver
Denver-SD
Pats-Bears
Jax-Giants
There are games with playoff implications on nationally every single week. There is nothing wrong with the NFL right now.
You mean the one where the Yankees gave up a cheap .500 pitcher in Ted Lilly to get a multi million dollar .500 pitcher in Jeff Weaver? That one?
News Flash, nobody was holding a gun to the Tigers heads to make that deal, they were dealing with the contracts that they signed.
The reality is that, since 1990, just as many different teams competed in the World Series as competed in the SuperBowl. I count 18 different baseball teams and 20 different football teams.
You seem to like bringing up the Devil Rays as being pathetic, why not bring up the Marlins, who shouldn’t have any better shot at winning, but have won TWO world series in the last decade.
The Tigers had the best record in baseball for most of this year.
The Tigers just took $13-million-a-year Gary Sheffield off the Yankees’ hands in return for prospects. They’re obviously not hurting for money.
Six different teams have won the World Series in the last six years, but the Patriots won three Super Bowls in four years. I would say the NFL, despite the stories bout parity, has a good system and that the best teams are generally there at the end. The wildcard has added a lot of excitement to baseball, but it’s making the playoffs into a crapshoot, which I think is beginning to bother fans - and in turn, the MLB may react by making it tougher for wildcard teams to win.