PDA

View Full Version : Is parity dead in the NFL?


Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 08:14 PM
I heard today that for the first time in NFL history you have 5 undefeated teams going into week 6.

Lets look up all the teams that have one loss or less... Broncos, Colts, Giants, Vikings are (5-0) & Saints (4-0)

Then if you add the the 'one loss' clubs into the mix ...Bengals (4-1) & Bears, Eagles, Falcons are all (3-1).

At the top you have 9 teams with a record of 37-4.

Not to mention a few teams out there that are really strong teams all sitting in the middle at (3-2) ... Pats, Ravens, Steelers.



Now lets look at all teams with one win or less.

Chiefs, Bucs, Rams & Titans all going (0-5).
Raiders, Lions, Bills & Browns are all (1-4) with Panthers (1-3)

At the bottom you have 9 teams going 5-39



A pretty wide gap between the have's and have-not's.

Is Parity dead as we have known it.... or is it all due to the way scheduling panned out so far this year.

BroncoInSkinland
10-16-2009, 08:32 PM
Interesting observations, I have thoughts regarding them on both sides of the parity situation.

First it is still early in the season, so this could change over the course of the year. Small sample sizes are not the best basis for generalizations such as this. That having been said, many of the teams on either side of that are perpetual denizens of either the top or bottom of those charts, indicating that teams remain good or bad over the course of multiple seasons. When the Raiders, Lions, Browns, Chiefs, and Rams are consistently vying for the first over all draft pick, while the Colts, Patriots, and Steelers repeatedly fight for who will get the #1, 2, and 3 seed over the course of a decade, it points strongly toward a lack of parity.

Second, and on the other side of the coin, there are many new entries onto this list over the past two years. Would you have believed the Bengals would be first in their division, or that the Titans would be last considering the records last year? The Bucs have won a super bowl more recently than we have, and if you had told me the Panthers would be on the list of failures in 2009 last December, I never would have believed it.

Overall, I think this indicates that competitive balance and rewarding smart coaching, and FO moves have achieved a nice equilibrium. Teams are rewarded in the long term for good moves in the past, but at the same time, there is room for growth, and it has become almost common place for a bottom feeder from the year before to become a playoff threat with a one year turn around. I for one believe that parity is alive and well, with all the proper checks and balances to allow successful organizations to continue being successful as long as smart moves are made.

No1BroncoFan
10-16-2009, 08:37 PM
I heard today that for the first time in NFL history you have 5 undefeated teams going into week 6.

Lets look up all the teams that have one loss or less... Broncos, Colts, Giants, Vikings are (5-0) & Saints (4-0)

Then if you add the the 'one loss' clubs into the mix ...Bengals (4-1) & Bears, Eagles, Falcons are all (3-1).

At the top you have 9 teams with a record of 37-4.

Not to mention a few teams out there that are really strong teams all sitting in the middle at (3-2) ... Pats, Ravens, Steelers.


Now lets look at all teams with one win or less.

Chiefs, Bucs, Rams & Titans all going (0-5).
Raiders, Lions, Bills & Browns are all (1-4) with Panthers (1-3)

At the bottom you have 9 teams going 5-39



A pretty wide gap between the have's and have-not's.

Is Parity dead as we have known it.... or is it all due to the way scheduling panned out so far this year.

I think, at least in part, it's the scheduling. One thing that's glaring is that good teams the previous year no longer face other good teams of the previous year, or at least not like they used to. Now you get a rotating schedule where you play certain divisions each year and only two games are different from any other team in your division. They used to match teams up based on record so if say the Colts consistently finished with double digit wins and the Redskins consistently finished with double digit wins they would most likely face each other each year. Now you get some divisions facing the NFC Jest whil others face the NFC East regardless of how good they were. Really, the new "Parity Scheduling" introduces less parity than the way they used to do it.

SportinOne
10-16-2009, 08:46 PM
The saddest part about all of this is that previous NFL seasons have me conditioned to never trust a great team vs. a weak team when making bets, consistently at least. But the good teams have been winning big, very consistently. The shame is that I haven't netted very much at all. It's tragic.

Things are going to change, though. They always do. One or two teams with good records are going to fall off and one or two weak teams are going to make runs. Although, at the moment I'm browsing the standings and I just can't figure out who's going to do what.

You would think that Cincy has great potential to fall. A lot of people would say that we are due as well. With our schedule I might be inclined to agree, however, this team is built to win. Barring injury, we are going to be in this to the end. Speaking of injuries, we haven't had a huge one yet. It's coming.

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 09:51 PM
I think, at least in part, it's the scheduling. One thing that's glaring is that good teams the previous year no longer face other good teams of the previous year, or at least not like they used to. Now you get a rotating schedule where you play certain divisions each year and only two games are different from any other team in your division. They used to match teams up based on record so if say the Colts consistently finished with double digit wins and the Redskins consistently finished with double digit wins they would most likely face each other each year. Now you get some divisions facing the NFC Jest whil others face the NFC East regardless of how good they were. Really, the new "Parity Scheduling" introduces less parity than the way they used to do it.

There's going to be a couple good games this week.

Giants at Saints
Ravens at Vikings
Bears at Falcons
Cardinals at Seahawks

finishing with the Broncos at Chargers

bronco militia
10-16-2009, 09:55 PM
this thread is ridiculous

Entering Week 6 of the 2008 season, Buffalo was 4-1 and led the AFC East. Denver was 4-1 and led the AFC West. Chicago was 3-2 and led the NFC North. Dallas and Washington were both 4-1, just a half-game back in the NFC East. None of those five teams made the playoffs, and we haven't even mentioned the Jets, who started 8-3 but didn't get to play in January, or a Patriots team that finished 11-5 and became the first 11-game winner to miss the dance since the 1985 Broncos.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/10/15/starts/index.html#ixzz0UALNny9D
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 10:00 PM
What's ridiculous about it. You have a large group of teams that suck... and don't look to be getting any better anytime soon.

If you're going to hate on it... then at least bring a better argument to the table.

bronco militia
10-16-2009, 10:16 PM
What's ridiculous about it. You have a large group of teams that suck... and don't look to be getting any better anytime soon.

If you're going to hate on it... then at least bring a better argument to the table.

a better argument? I gave you THE ARGUMENT
.

the season is barely a quarter over and you've figured everything out....

carry on then

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 10:32 PM
I posed a question to a current trend.

Where did I say I had figured everything out?

bronco militia
10-16-2009, 10:33 PM
I posed a question to a current trend.

Where did I say I had figured everything out?

your trend has occured often.....click my link I provided

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 10:39 PM
You didn't answer my question ... where did I say I had everything figured out?

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 11:12 PM
btw, the link you provide was an article about certain teams fading after a fast start with the Broncos as an example.

Just another jab at us bronco believers eh?

You bring up some guy who's doubting the fast starters this year with examples of teams that have faded in the past. I brought up the fact that the LEAGUE is currently experiencing a wide rift in the have's and have-not's.

This thread isn't about which teams will fade this year. Guess what ... EVERY year there are teams that fade.

Are you confused Militia?

watermock
10-16-2009, 11:17 PM
Parity can only continue with an extension of the cap.

I expect an ugly fight over the CBA, possibly worse than '83.

PRBronco
10-16-2009, 11:34 PM
I think a major player in killing parity is the lack of the rookie salary cap. The first pick overall pick is a curse, not a gift. Even a top 5 pick, these days. The bottomfeeders are forced to spend the kind of money we spend on Champ, on players who no one can even hope to come close to that contribution level for at least 2 or 3 years, and those are rare cases, like Fitz or AD.

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 11:35 PM
Perhaps parity as we know it. Let's face it. Regardless of the cap, some teams get how to thrive in this system and some don't. You still don't see the Lions, chiefs, browns etc. going to the Super Bowl in our life times as things stand right now.

The CBA is going to be real interesting. Somethings gotta give. You're having teams now considering giving up their top 5 draft picks because of the crazy salaries these unproven players are getting.

Bronco Yoda
10-16-2009, 11:36 PM
you reading my mind PR. We posted at the same time

hambone13
10-17-2009, 12:37 AM
you reading my mind PR. We posted at the same time

I thought the same thing when I read his response...

Circle Orange
10-17-2009, 01:15 AM
It's funny, the talking heads complained about "parity" year after year. Here's the top cliche:

"The NFL is set up so that you can go from worst to first."

I don't know about "setups" but it's just a combination of things:

Scheduling (not who you play, but when)
Established teams playing teams in transition with new coaches and quarterbacks
Teams on the upswing/downswing shifting of power
Teams with injuries

I don't read anything into this. Some of the fast starts will hit a wall and some of the slow starters will pick up momentum.

ZONA
10-17-2009, 02:00 AM
this thread is ridiculous

Entering Week 6 of the 2008 season, Buffalo was 4-1 and led the AFC East. Denver was 4-1 and led the AFC West. Chicago was 3-2 and led the NFC North. Dallas and Washington were both 4-1, just a half-game back in the NFC East. None of those five teams made the playoffs, and we haven't even mentioned the Jets, who started 8-3 but didn't get to play in January, or a Patriots team that finished 11-5 and became the first 11-game winner to miss the dance since the 1985 Broncos.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/10/15/starts/index.html#ixzz0UALNny9D
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

REP :thumbsup:

The Joker
10-17-2009, 06:01 AM
Parity, for me, means that all teams have the opportunity to be as competitive as the next one.

I believe this exists in the NFL, any team who puts together a good staff, drafts well and does well in FA has every chance to go from being a bad team to a competitive one quite quickly. There's no real ceiling on what teams can achieve, and that in essence is what parity should be all about.

If teams aren't good enough to take advantage of this opportunity, that's they're own fault.

Teams like the Pats and Steelers have been good for a long while now because they have good coaches, and make more good personel moves than bad ones. This should be rewarded, and it is.

If the Chiefs, Raiders and Lions continue to make stupid moves, they don't deserve to be competitive. If they start making the right moves, they can turn it around. Until then, they deserve to suck.

Sports ars supposed to have winners and losers. This whinging that parity isn't achieved is akin to giving out medals to every kid at the science fair, even though some kids clearly did better projects than the others.

BroncoInSkinland
10-17-2009, 06:08 AM
Parity, for me, means that all teams have the opportunity to be as competitive as the next one.

I believe this exists in the NFL, any team who puts together a good staff, drafts well and does well in FA has every chance to go from being a bad team to a competitive one quite quickly. There's no real ceiling on what teams can achieve, and that in essence is what parity should be all about.

If teams aren't good enough to take advantage of this opportunity, that's they're own fault.

Teams like the Pats and Steelers have been good for a long while now because they have good coaches, and make more good personel moves than bad ones. This should be rewarded, and it is.

If the Chiefs, Raiders and Lions continue to make stupid moves, they don't deserve to be competitive. If they start making the right moves, they can turn it around. Until then, they deserve to suck.

Sports ars supposed to have winners and losers. This whinging that parity isn't achieved is akin to giving out medals to every kid at the science fair, even though some kids clearly did better projects than the others.

Agreed, and regarding the idea of top 5 picks being an anchor on failing teams, no one forces them to use those picks, they are free to trade or even skip the pick if they so choose. The fact that the teams who pick in the top 5 on a regular basis don't get any advantage from those high picks is the fault of the team picking, no one else.

The Joker
10-17-2009, 06:25 AM
Agreed, and regarding the idea of top 5 picks being an anchor on failing teams, no one forces them to use those picks, they are free to trade or even skip the pick if they so choose. The fact that the teams who pick in the top 5 on a regular basis don't get any advantage from those high picks is the fault of the team picking, no one else.

I think it's very hard to skip on a top pick, fans would be in uproar. Rookie pay scales needs to be introduced, I do think the top 10 draft picks aren't quite the advantage they're intended to be.

BroncoInSkinland
10-17-2009, 06:28 AM
I think it's very hard to skip on a top pick, fans would be in uproar. Rookie pay scales needs to be introduced, I do think the top 10 draft picks aren't quite the advantage they're intended to be.

I agree on the pay scales, but as far as the skipping on a pick goes, fans were in an uproar here all offseason, once it improved the team, things quieted down. If the organizations in question don't have the courage to make the tough calls, that might be why they are failing on a regular basis.

Sir_Robin
10-17-2009, 07:21 AM
http://stattrek.com/Lesson2/Normal.aspx

Rabb
10-17-2009, 07:26 AM
a big part of this which is sort of a variable in the whole parity argument (most people consider parity to mean player talent) is coaching

we struck gold it seems, but coaching turnover and guessing seems to take teams from bottom to top and vice versa

just my .02

bronco militia
10-17-2009, 09:30 AM
btw, the link you provide was an article about certain teams fading after a fast start with the Broncos as an example.

Just another jab at us bronco believers eh?

You bring up some guy who's doubting the fast starters this year with examples of teams that have faded in the past. I brought up the fact that the LEAGUE is currently experiencing a wide rift in the have's and have-not's.

This thread isn't about which teams will fade this year. Guess what ... EVERY year there are teams that fade.

Are you confused Militia?

sorry...i fell asleep last night right after I posted that..

your first post of this thread shows the current records of the haves and have nots. my link shows that there's still plenty of parity when the 1st quarter hot teams fall back to the pack during THE REST OF THE SEASON. IMO there are no elite teams in the NFL and there haven't been since the Broncos won back to back titles in 1998. (I only say that because I still think that 1998 broncos team could beat every super bowl winner since that year)

the salary cap has continued to do it's job.

but I do agree that a rookie salary cap is badly overdue. It seems like the only thing seperating teams now is their stadium situation and the scouting department

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2009, 09:39 AM
but I do agree that a rookie salary cap is badly overdue. It seems like the only thing seperating teams now is their stadium situation and the scouting department

THERE. IS. A. ROOKIE. SALARY. CAP.

How many times does that need to be repeated on this board by multiple people?

bronco militia
10-17-2009, 09:59 AM
THERE. IS. A. ROOKIE. SALARY. CAP.

How many times does that need to be repeated on this board by multiple people?

ok, it needs to be lowered....you're arguing semantics here, herc

Bronco Yoda
10-17-2009, 12:33 PM
sorry...i fell asleep last night right after I posted that..

your first post of this thread shows the current records of the haves and have nots. my link shows that there's still plenty of parity when the 1st quarter hot teams fall back to the pack during THE REST OF THE SEASON. IMO there are no elite teams in the NFL and there haven't been since the Broncos won back to back titles in 1998. (I only say that because I still think that 1998 broncos team could beat every super bowl winner since that year)

the salary cap has continued to do it's job.

but I do agree that a rookie salary cap is badly overdue. It seems like the only thing seperating teams now is their stadium situation and the scouting department

I'll agree that at this point there seems to be no slam dunk one or two elite teams... but instead there are a bunch of really good teams. Thus a gob of really good teams at the top and a gob of really bad teams at the bottom.

thus a have/have-not situation instead of a smooth arc of good to bad teams.

I also agree that it is really early to make this point... however since this is the most undefeated and 1 loss that the league has ever seen at this point in the season I pulled the trigger.

Bronx33
10-17-2009, 12:38 PM
I heard today that for the first time in NFL history you have 5 undefeated teams going into week 6.

Lets look up all the teams that have one loss or less... Broncos, Colts, Giants, Vikings are (5-0) & Saints (4-0)

Then if you add the the 'one loss' clubs into the mix ...Bengals (4-1) & Bears, Eagles, Falcons are all (3-1).

At the top you have 9 teams with a record of 37-4.

Not to mention a few teams out there that are really strong teams all sitting in the middle at (3-2) ... Pats, Ravens, Steelers.




Now lets look at all teams with one win or less.

Chiefs, Bucs, Rams & Titans all going (0-5).
Raiders, Lions, Bills & Browns are all (1-4) with Panthers (1-3)

At the bottom you have 9 teams going 5-39


A pretty wide gap between the have's and have-not's.

Is Parity dead as we have known it.... or is it all due to the way scheduling panned out so far this year.



Another factor is club with good ownership/FO/quality team staff vs clubs with poor ownership/FO/team staff it really makes a huge difference on the field and in the win/losses department which is the final factor example: raiders they have had first picks for how many years and are not even close to being a team and that has alot to do with the club as a whole.

baja
10-17-2009, 12:58 PM
Another factor is club with good ownership/FO/quality team staff vs clubs with poor ownership/FO/team staff it really makes a huge difference on the field and in the win/losses department which is the final factor example: raiders they have had first picks for how many years and are not even close to being a team and that has alot to do with the club as a whole.

Well how do you explain the gutless drunk Pat Bowlen having an undefeated team. Unless he is not really a gutless drunk..

Bronx33
10-17-2009, 12:59 PM
Well how do you explain the gutless drunk Pat Bowlen having an undefeated team. Unless he is not really a gutless drunk..


:spit: some folks got some splaining to do...

Hercules Rockefeller
10-17-2009, 01:15 PM
ok, it needs to be lowered....you're arguing semantics here, herc

I'm guessing what you want is in place in the NBA?

It's not semantics then, what the NBA has is a rookie wage scale. 2 completely different things.

ColoradoDarin
10-17-2009, 03:29 PM
No, parity is not dead in just the first 5 games of the season. We're not even 1/3 into one year. I wouldn't even think that a one year aberration is any cause for concern either.

Bronco Yoda
10-29-2009, 07:50 PM
Week 7
Six games had a margin of victory of 28 points or better. That ties an all-time NFL record (it happened one other time in the early 70's I think).

TheChamp24
10-30-2009, 10:03 AM
There are a ton of awful teams, and its making parity slightly go away.
I mean, usually you only have a couple really awful teams that just don't have anything working for them. Now, you have at least a half dozen, and thats not even getting into teams that aren't awful, but bad.

Rock Chalk
10-30-2009, 11:23 AM
Going into week 7 of the NFL season there has NEVER been 3 undefeated teams.

There has ALSO NEVER been 3 winless teams this deep into the season.

Circle Orange
10-30-2009, 07:41 PM
Well how do you explain the gutless drunk Pat Bowlen having an undefeated team. Unless he is not really a gutless drunk..

How can you hate a man with fox pimp coats? ;D

on the parity, non parity issue. Its simply a convergence of established teams playing teams in transition. Thus, no great teams but good teams "looking" great because they beat up incomplete/young/injured/chaotic teams.

The Saints may be the exception. They're beginning to remind me of the Warner Rams, but with more defense.