NFL parity

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

I think the league is great as is. Look at my team, the Steelers. With one exception (this past Sunday) the Steelers have been in every game. They are more or less the same team they were last year, so how is it possible that their record could be so poor this year? I’ll tell you why- because one player couldn’t keep his head on straight in the offseason (literally) the team as a whole pays the price. That’s what parity brings you. It makes it possible for another team to win against a team they had no chance against last year even though there is no obvious reason why it should be that way (although sometimes the reason is pretty obvious, like with Ben).

Still, you have to admit to yourself that there really isn’t as much parity as you think there is. Look at the Cardinals and the Lions, perennial bottom feeders both. Then look at the Patriots, who have won three of the last five Super Bowls.

@gonzomax

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.

The perceived value of these teams lies not in location, but rarity. With only 32 teams to choose from they can charge premium price from potential suitors. In many cases the location sucks. I mean, were it not for the fact that the town of Green bay owns the packers they would have been gone a long time ago. The NFL still smarts over the fact that they can’t make a go of it in Los Angeles despite their best efforts.

Should the teams be locked in? They all but are anyway. Who has moved in your lifetime? The Colts, the Cardinals, the Browns, the Rams, and the Raiders. In all cases (with the exception of LA) the cities they vacated got a new franchise. The net difference? Bupkis. LA obviously cannot support a team, so there’s no loss there, and virtually every city that wants a team has one.

[Enginerd]

@Airman Doors

Still, you have to admit to yourself that there really isn’t as much parity as you think there is. Look at the Cardinals and the Lions, perennial bottom feeders both. Then look at the Patriots, who have won three of the last five Super Bowls.

Yeah, the Lions and Cardinals are both consistently bad teams, but they’re also consistently mismanaged teams as well. The Pats have won three of the last five Super Bowls, but they’re a well coached team with a sharp front office. Pioli doesn’t overpay for players, and he builds through the draft, using free agency (and the attendant salary cap woes) only to fill the holes that desperately need plugging.

The Lions and Cardinals have had first round pick after first round pick bust, they’ve blown wads of cash on free agents that didn’t pan out, and they’ve put teams together badly. Still, even they aren’t down and out every season. In the salary cap era (since '94), the Lions have made the playoffs four times, and the Cardinals even made it once - winning a Wild Card game in '98. The only NFL team that hasn’t made the playoffs in the salary cap era is the expansion Houston Texans.

Compare that to MLB, where seven teams have been completely shut out of the postseason in the same time frame. Once you’re in the playoffs, anything can happen - it just takes getting hot at the right time, and you can steal a Wild Card game or a five game series. But in baseball’s economic model, there are more than a few teams who are simply incapable of competing with the rest of the league during the regular season. This is partially due to bad management, but it’s exacerbated by the huge differences in available resources between teams.

Perennial losers in the NFL are poorly managed teams, but the league does all it can to help them succeed. If the management is replaced with a dedicated, competent group, the team can be completely turned around in a couple of years - look at what’s happened in Cincinnatti over the last few seasons. Replace Matt Millen with Rich McKay, and the Lions would be in playoff contention in three years. Losers in MLB are often poorly managed as well, but they also have the deck stacked against them from the start. Once revenues start falling, there’s no way for a small market team to get back on their feet.

[gonzomax]

Is Oakland considered small market?

[Cheesesteak]

@Enginerd

The only NFL team that hasn’t made the playoffs in the salary cap era is the expansion Houston Texans.

Compare that to MLB, where seven teams have been completely shut out of the postseason in the same time frame.

The NFL has a 12 team playoff instead of an 8 team playoff, how many of those shut out teams would have made it if there were 4 extra slots each year? Baseball also plays 10x as many games as football, so you can’t have a few lucky breaks and wind up 9-7 with a wild card spot.

[BabaBooey]

I’d just about keep the NFL just as it is, hopefully ending the constantly increasing cap ceiling before the small market teams start having trouble being competitive. The one thing I would change is courtesy of Bill Simmons: give a small percentage of uncapped space used exclusively to sign players drafted by the team.

[Enginerd]

@BabaBooey

I’d just about keep the NFL just as it is, hopefully ending the constantly increasing cap ceiling before the small market teams start having trouble being competitive. The one thing I would change is courtesy of Bill Simmons: give a small percentage of uncapped space used exclusively to sign players drafted by the team.

The constantly increasing cap is a function of constantly increasing league revenues. The Collective Bargaining Agreement sets the cap at a give percentage of the total shared revenues… if you want to change that, you’re going to have an uphill battle with the players’ union.

@Cheesesteak

The NFL has a 12 team playoff instead of an 8 team playoff, how many of those shut out teams would have made it if there were 4 extra slots each year? Baseball also plays 10x as many games as football, so you can’t have a few lucky breaks and wind up 9-7 with a wild card spot.

So I just went through the records and figured it out: In addition to the Texans, the expansion Cleveland Browns, the Detroit Lions and the Arizona Cardinals wouldn’t have made an 8 game postseason over that time. Four out of 32 teams in the NFL (including two expansion teams), vs. 7 out of 30 MLB teams - including two franchises that have been around since the 1880’s. The economics of baseball are great if you’re a Yankees fan, but it’s ultimately not a sustainable model. Something has to change - either contraction, revenue sharing, a salary cap, relegation… Otherwise, MLB will continue to lose market share to the NFL, and revenues in cities that aren’t New York or Boston will keep shrinking.

[John_DiFool]

@Cheesesteak

The NFL has a 12 team playoff instead of an 8 team playoff, how many of those shut out teams would have made it if there were 4 extra slots each year? Baseball also plays 10x as many games as football, so you can’t have a few lucky breaks and wind up 9-7 with a wild card spot.

Except that the difference in winning percentages in baseball is much smaller than
it is in the NFL (even with Rozelle’s/Tagliabue’s parity. This allows a .500 quality
team to sneak into the playoffs and perhaps even win it all (am I talking to you St.
Louis Cardinals?) despite the tenfold factor in games played. I get the feeling that
the Super Bowl rarely has a Cinderella team get in there and win it. In the NBA you
combine winning percentages akin to the NFL, but decided over the course of 7 game
postseason series, so the best team almost always wins there. In the NHL it seems
that a hot goalie can carry a team on its back so it’s hard to come to any conclusions
there about competitive balance.

[EllisDee]

@Least Original User Name Ever

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.

That’s the point of a coaches cap. To clarify, coordinators and position coaches are all coaches. My own take would include GMs as well. The coaches cap would force you to make decisions on where to spend your money; do you want the big name head coach, or do you want some stud coordinators? Or do you want to develop an entire staff from promising young prospects?

@Dob

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 don’t see any problem with player turnover. Stahan, Tiki and Toomer will all retire as Giants, and Strahan came into the league when free agency began. Ed Reed and Ray Lewis aren’t leaving Baltimore anytime soon. And marquee quarterbacks are almost never moved unless a) they get completely broken, or b) a bigger marquee guy is drafted behind them. (Think Peyton Manning would have a real team around him if his salary wasn’t so huge? Yeah, so do I.)

Who is your favorite team? I’d bet a good percentage of their roster has only ever been with that team. I know on the Giants, over 30 (of the total 53 man roster) have only ever been Giants.

Also, teams have become much more cap-savvy, structuring contracts that enable roster turnover without leading to salary cap hell. That type of finesse is largely responsible for the Patriots and Eagles extended runs at the top. The 49ers will likely be the last team to ever go through salary cap hell as it existed in the late-90s through early 2000s.

hijack:

The 49ers have always sucked at the concept of the cap, likely because their dynasty was built largely through outspending everyone else. They are the only franchise, to my knowledge, who has ever been penalized (loss of draft picks) for exceeding the cap. Not sure if they’re getting past that or what, but their Yankees-esque philosophy has always bugged me.

@BabaBooey

I’d just about keep the NFL just as it is, hopefully ending the constantly increasing cap ceiling before the small market teams start having trouble being competitive. The one thing I would change is courtesy of Bill Simmons: give a small percentage of uncapped space used exclusively to sign players drafted by the team.

The only issue with small market teams is local revenue. Gate receipts are already shared, so local revenue basically amounts to local tv channels owned by teams. (Like the Cowboys, who were the first to do that.) The players want the local revenue to be shared and factored into the cap, but the owners want it kept separate.

I’d like to see local revenue kept local. As in, teams don’t have to share it, but they also can’t spend it on the team. Maybe sink it into the stadium or something. I recognize that my opinions on this matter set world records for naivete and ignorance, so don’t kill me on this one.

As for Bill Simmons’ idea, it’s a great one. Something like 5% of a player’s salary for his 5th year with a team is outside the cap, going up 1% each year thereafter. While I wouldn’t mind seeing it only apply to drafted players, that line is a bit fuzzy. For example, Philip Rivers should be considered a pure Charger through and through despite not having been drafted by them.

[Oakminster]

@Petey

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.

Doesn’t really make that much difference in practice. Look at the Saints. Last year, we were the league doormat. 3-13. This year, our schedule includes 6 games against divisional opponents, 4 games against the NFC East, 4 games against the AFC North, and 1 game each against a team from the NFC North and NFC East. Really, our schedule is identical to all of the other teams in our division, except for the games against the NFC North and NFC West. We play the Packers and the 49ers instead of the Bears and the Seahawks. The schedule gives us a slight edge…but there are only two games that have any discretion about who the opponent will be, and those opponents must come from designated divisions. Still, the Saints have really turned it around this year. 7-4 at the moment. We went 1-3 against the AFC North–blown out by Baltimore, and handled comfortably by Pittsburgh and Cincy. With 5 games to go this year, 3 of ours are against the NFC East–Dallas, New York, and Washington. All things considered, I think our schedule this year is much tougher than it was last year…but that’s because of the rotating schedule against outside divisions. If we had played the AFC North, we might have turned 1-3 into 3-1 this year (Pats would still kick our ass).

[brianjedi]

@Ellis Dee

As for Bill Simmons’ idea, it’s a great one. Something like 5% of a player’s salary for his 5th year with a team is outside the cap, going up 1% each year thereafter. While I wouldn’t mind seeing it only apply to drafted players, that line is a bit fuzzy. For example, Philip Rivers should be considered a pure Charger through and through despite not having been drafted by them.

It’s basically just an NFL version of the NBA’s “Larry Bird exception.”

Instead of it being solely the team that drafts a player, I’d expand it to include the first team a player plays for if he is traded before playing, precisely because of situations like Rivers.

[Enginerd]

@Ellis Dee

hijack:

The 49ers have always sucked at the concept of the cap, likely because their dynasty was built largely through outspending everyone else. They are the only franchise, to my knowledge, who has ever been penalized (loss of draft picks) for exceeding the cap. Not sure if they’re getting past that or what, but their Yankees-esque philosophy has always bugged me.

hijack continued:
Both Denver and Pittsburgh have been penalized draft picks (as well as fined $950,000 each) for salary cap violations. In Pittsburgh’s case, a team audit caught the error and they reported themselves to the league. Denver tried to cover it up and forced the league to go through a year long investigation. I hate the Steelers, but the Rooneys run a classy organization. Can’t say the same for Pat Bowlen.

[EllisDee]

@gonzomax

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.

There is no conceivable metric by which the appeal of the game is diminshing. There is a reason that ESPN pays the NFL $1.1 billion per year to broadcast MNF, and that reason is because the NFL, which has been a ratings juggernaut for decades, is more popular than it has ever been in the past.

While more people actually watch baseball (by virtue of there being 10 times the number of events to watch,) no sport even comes close to the NFL for ratings. I compiled some numbers to put the ratings in context. (Numbers listed are millions of viewers.)

2.6 World Cup Soccer (US only)
…
13 NBA Finals
14 Monday Night Football (cable)
15 NFL regular season (Average of FOX and CBS nationally televised Sunday 4:00 games)
16 World Series
17 NASCAR (a very rough guesstimate)
.
19 Sunday Night Football
20 Winter Olympics
.
22 NFL playoffs - Wildcard round
.
.
25 Summer Olympics
.
.
28 NFL playoffs - Conference Championships
.
.
.
.
33 Daytona 500 (The “Superbowl” of NASCAR, which is an apt comparison. 33?! That’s American Idol territory.)
…
90 Superbowl

When you factor in the fracturing of television audiences in today’s cable and satellite era, the strong incentive to avoid time-shifting sports events, (very few tape a game and watch it later,) and the 18-49 male demographic, it is obvious why sports is a favorite destination for advertising dollars. Given the huge ratings and therefore undiminished appeal of the NFL, it is a no-brainer for stations like ESPN to pay over a billion dollars a year to broadcast 17 games.

Incidentally, I couldn’t find a reliable number for average NASCAR ratings. The numbers I found varied wildly depending on when the article was written. Anywhere from 7 million to 19 million was cited, though no numbers for 2006 appear to be available. I did find, however, countless articles written about how badly the ratings are down in 2006, and why that might be.

P.S: Yes, Oakland is a small market.

---

Ha, it took me so friggin’ long to dig up actual ratings numbers that several posts have snuck in that I’d like to respond to. So to continue this marathon post…

@Petey

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.

@Oakminster

Doesn’t really make that much difference in practice. […] All things considered, I think our schedule this year is much tougher than it was last year…but that’s because of the rotating schedule against outside divisions.

That schedule format didn’t begin until realignment in 2002. Petey is largely correct in that Rozelle’s plan for parity mostly centered around strength of schedule, which was much more pronounced prior to 2002. I can easily buy into his argument that parity was retconned into the draft and salary cap, much like lower death rates were retconned into the 55 mph national speed limit after the oil crisis.

@brianjedi

Instead of it being solely the team that drafts a player, I’d expand it to include the first team a player plays for if he is traded before playing, precisely because of situations like Rivers.

I wouldn’t mind a simple “5 years with the same team” requirement. As a fairly strong example, Curtis Martin was very very Jet-ty despite playing a few years in New England. (Not as strong of a case as Rivers, but c’mon, if Canton affiliated players with teams like Cooperstown does, do you think there’d be even a moment’s consideration for giving him a Pats uni?)

Enginerd, great info on the other cap penalties. It is indisputable that the Steelers are a flagship of the NFL and one of the classiest organizations to be found in the world of sports.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@gonzomax

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.

Bolding mine.

It’s an Xbox, asshole. Not just ANY Xbox, it’s an Xbox 360!

I don’t see YOU tearing yourself from Tiger Woods '07, anyways. I also agree. Owners aren’t screwing up. You and I both know that the Ford family knew that getting to the first round of the playoffs means making the most profit. Where did our (yours when they lose) Lions end up then?

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Ellis Dee

That’s the point of a coaches cap. To clarify, coordinators and position coaches are all coaches. My own take would include GMs as well. The coaches cap would force you to make decisions on where to spend your money; do you want the big name head coach, or do you want some stud coordinators? Or do you want to develop an entire staff from promising young prospects?
(snip)

So, where does this money go if the owner wants to be a “cheapskate” and get only (relatively) inexpensive young guys?

[gonzomax]

Of course they would drop the price of tickets.

[Enginerd]

@Least Original User Name Ever

So, where does this money go if the owner wants to be a “cheapskate” and get only (relatively) inexpensive young guys?

Wouldn’t happen. Nobody skimps on the cap for players - they’re all trying to win. A competitive team generates more revenue than a lousy one.

If an owner did try that, he’d be facing pressure from 31 other owners to straighten up. If he fields a team that’s not built to win, the team isn’t going to make as much money… and in the NFL, that hits every owner in the wallet, not just the one guy. I think they’d be able to bring him into line pretty quickly.

[gonzomax]

I have read that in order to maximize your profits ,you will win one game in the playoffs. The Superbowl and Quarterfinal have so much seating given to players sponsors and dignitaries ,that it does not pay to go too far. Some owners are by their nature competitive. Some are greedy bastards who have little interest in the game. They know some fans live through the game and they could care less.
The league has been set up to defeat poor ownership. As discussed earlier, the draft and revenue sharing have been designed to force them to be competitive. Yet ,the Lions have never been in the Superbowl. They have been financially successful. perhaps to Ford that is enough. His son tried to change things and was prevented from doing it. The ownership sickened Barry Sanders into an early retirement. He filled the seats,why try to win.?

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Enginerd

Wouldn’t happen. Nobody skimps on the cap for players - they’re all trying to win. A competitive team generates more revenue than a lousy one.

If an owner did try that, he’d be facing pressure from 31 other owners to straighten up. If he fields a team that’s not built to win, the team isn’t going to make as much money… and in the NFL, that hits every owner in the wallet, not just the one guy. I think they’d be able to bring him into line pretty quickly.

Not to mingle sports again, but explain the Oakland Athletics, then. They’ve got Billy Beane who applies his formula to the team’s acquisitions and to the managers. They’re all more or less interchangable parts.

In football, it’s harder to get by with cheap, young talent. That doesn’t mean that it’s not impossible. Wait for one to do it and wait for the rest. The NFL is a league of sheep that follow the trend when someone hops out in front.

I don’t know if an owner would face pressure from the others. You think the owner of the Cardinals gives a shit about what the owner of the Colts says? He’s making sacks and sacks of loot! Everyone’s making sacks of loot! You become an owner because you want to make money and because it’s an investment. (this is where we quibble about how to make the most money and never agree on a middle ground)

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@gonzomax

I have read that in order to maximize your profits ,you will win one game in the playoffs. The Superbowl and Quarterfinal have so much seating given to players sponsors and dignitaries ,that it does not pay to go too far. Some owners are by their nature competitive. Some are greedy bastards who have little interest in the game. They know some fans live through the game and they could care less.
The league has been set up to defeat poor ownership. As discussed earlier, the draft and revenue sharing have been designed to force them to be competitive. Yet ,the Lions have never been in the Superbowl. They have been financially successful. perhaps to Ford that is enough. His son tried to change things and was prevented from doing it. The ownership sickened Barry Sanders into an early retirement. He filled the seats,why try to win.?

The Lions STILL sell out every stinking game. The only way to get the Ford family to do anything is to hit them in the pocketbook. We, as fans, are simply not doing that.

[Trunk]

@Least Original User Name Ever

Not to mingle sports again, but explain the Oakland Athletics, then. They’ve got Billy Beane who applies his formula to the team’s acquisitions and to the managers. They’re all more or less interchangable parts.

It’s pointless to keep bringing up single teams and demanding “explain this”.

Oakland is a big exception and have done it with superb identification of young talent, and definitely got the jump on the rest of the league in “moneyball” terms.

Baseball has winners and losers and they have been kept there by economics. Each year a new set of teams might percolate up, then settle back down, but it doesn’t change the overriding dynamic.

In football, teams like the Pats and the Broncos have been able to maintain levels of success over time, but nothing like baseball. Where has Green Bay gone? Where has Pittsburgh gone? Where have the Rams gone?

Don’t you think if the Steelers had the options the Yankees do, they would have just brought in Marvin Harrison for Randle-El, and taken Larry Johnson from Kansas City to fill in for the loss of Jerome Bettis?

I’m not even sure what we’re arguing anymore. Is it that MLB has as much parity as the NFL? Are people claiming that, or are we just measuring dicks over throwaway details in people’s posts?