Is Parity Dead?

flere-imsaho · 10-29-2009, 10:59 AM

This guy seems to think so. I'm not so sure.

While we're obviously seeing a lot of great and terrible teams this year, it seems like only last season we were talking about how so many teams had a chance to make the playoffs.

It seems to me that it's not a case of parity being "dead", but parity, true parity, never arriving in the first place. Instead, the point of the changes made in the wake of, say, the Cowboys teams of the 1990s, was to make the playing field considerably more level, but not to ensure that there would be a consistent cluster of teams around 8-8 each season.

Drake · 10-29-2009, 11:03 AM

Seven weeks of one NFL season is such a huge sample set with which to declare a trend.

molson · 10-29-2009, 11:05 AM

I think parity just means that every team has the chance to be relevant over a given period of time.

The Raiders and Rams stink right now, but both have been in super bowls in the last 10 years. The Chiefs have had great teams in the not-so distant past (that have flamed out in the playoffs).

There's nothing stopping any team from being relevant except for horrible management.

Bad-example · 10-29-2009, 11:09 AM

the parity's over

Samdari · 10-29-2009, 11:17 AM

The Raiders and Bucs met in the Super Bowl fairly recently and the Pats and Colts were laughingstocks shortly before that.

For all the "parity is dead" talk, three division winners from last year are in last place, and four non-playoff teams are tied/leading divisions.

Basically, the only real oddity this year is that there are 5-6 putrid teams instead of the normal 2-3.Even at that, two of the putrid have won two games (the same as a far from putrid Miami team) thus proving the "any given Sunday" concept, no?

RomaGoth · 10-29-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

There's nothing stopping any team from being relevant except for horrible management.

+1

fantom1979 · 10-29-2009, 12:04 PM

I am in agreement with most of the posts here. Historically bad teams like the Cardinals, Bucs, Falcons, Saints, and Bengles have been in the playoffs in the last five years. Every team except for the Lions, Bills, and Texans have been in the playoffs this decade.

sabotai · 10-29-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

There's nothing stopping any team from being relevant except for horrible management.

+2.

There is nothing in the system right now that is preventing parity. Bad management of some teams (and great management of others) is the reason for any gap that has emerged between teams.

I like having a system in place that promotes parity, but I'd hate to have a system that forced it.

Daimyo · 10-29-2009, 02:16 PM

The AFC hasn't had parity for a while now... Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh are pretty much in the top four every year.

Raiders Army · 10-29-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

I think parity just means that every team has the chance to be relevant over a given period of time.

The Raiders and Rams stink right now, but both have been in super bowls in the last 10 years. The Chiefs have had great teams in the not-so distant past (that have flamed out in the playoffs).

There's nothing stopping any team from being relevant except for horrible management.

Agreed or plus three whatever.

RendeR · 10-29-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The AFC hasn't had parity for a while now... Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh are pretty much in the top four every year.

Funny considering that last season the Pats missed the playoffs and the Colts were 2nd in their division...

Karlifornia · 10-29-2009, 02:31 PM

The guy who wrote that must be a Lions fan.

RomaGoth · 10-29-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The AFC hasn't had parity for a while now... Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh are pretty much in the top four every year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RendeR

Funny considering that last season the Pats missed the playoffs and the Colts were 2nd in their division...

I think the phrase pretty much is different than always. The AFC has had the same 4 or 5 teams be competitive nearly every season for quite a while now.

Honolulu_Blue · 10-29-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RendeR

Funny considering that last season the Pats missed the playoffs and the Colts were 2nd in their division...

That Pats barely missed the playoffs last year because Brady was injured. Even with a quarterback who never started a game in college, they were 11-5 and were tied with a few other teams for the third best recond in the AFC and entire NFL.

The Colts had a 12-4 record, which tied them for the second best record in the AFC and entire NFL.

Not so funny now, is it, laughing boy?

Honolulu Blue · 10-29-2009, 05:19 PM

HB #2 here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

There's nothing stopping any team from being relevant except for horrible management.

Yeah, but there's no shortage of horrible managers - and owners - in the NFL.

molson · 10-29-2009, 05:34 PM

As long as Brady and Manning are around the Pats and Colts are going to be pretty good. I don't think that's an argument against parity. If those teams still dominate the AFC for a decade after both retire, and if they had dominated the AFC for a decade before they showed up (which certainly wasn't the case), then that's a different story.

Samdari · 10-30-2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daimyo

The AFC hasn't had parity for a while now... Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh are pretty much in the top four every year.

Which pretty much emphasizes that good management, and stability are keys to winning.

Ping: Washington Redskins.

MIJB#19 · 10-30-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I think the phrase pretty much is different than always. The AFC has had the same 4 or 5 teams be competitive nearly every season for quite a while now.

I think 4 or 5 teams and nearly every season don't equal always either.

MIJB#19 · 10-30-2009, 10:09 AM

Argh, I wanted to vote "no" but accidentally hit "yes"...

View Poll Results: Is Parity in the NFL dead?
Yes	6	15.79%
No	22	57.89%
Parity never existed	8	21.05%
Trout ate the parity	2	5.26%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

10-29-2009, 11:17 AM	#5
Samdari Roster Filler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cicero	The Raiders and Bucs met in the Super Bowl fairly recently and the Pats and Colts were laughingstocks shortly before that. For all the "parity is dead" talk, three division winners from last year are in last place, and four non-playoff teams are tied/leading divisions. Basically, the only real oddity this year is that there are 5-6 putrid teams instead of the normal 2-3.Even at that, two of the putrid have won two games (the same as a far from putrid Miami team) thus proving the "any given Sunday" concept, no? __________________ http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!

10-29-2009, 12:04 PM	#7
fantom1979 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sterling Heights, Mi	I am in agreement with most of the posts here. Historically bad teams like the Cardinals, Bucs, Falcons, Saints, and Bengles have been in the playoffs in the last five years. Every team except for the Lions, Bills, and Texans have been in the playoffs this decade. Last edited by fantom1979 : 10-29-2009 at 12:05 PM.

10-29-2009, 02:31 PM	#12
Karlifornia Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: San Jose, CA	The guy who wrote that must be a Lions fan. __________________ Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW) http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com

10-29-2009, 05:34 PM	#16
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	As long as Brady and Manning are around the Pats and Colts are going to be pretty good. I don't think that's an argument against parity. If those teams still dominate the AFC for a decade after both retire, and if they had dominated the AFC for a decade before they showed up (which certainly wasn't the case), then that's a different story. Last edited by molson : 10-29-2009 at 05:35 PM.

10-29-2009, 11:03 AM	#2
Drake assmaster Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Bloomington, IN	Seven weeks of one NFL season is such a huge sample set with which to declare a trend.

10-29-2009, 11:05 AM	#3
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	I think parity just means that every team has the chance to be relevant over a given period of time. The Raiders and Rams stink right now, but both have been in super bowls in the last 10 years. The Chiefs have had great teams in the not-so distant past (that have flamed out in the playoffs). There's nothing stopping any team from being relevant except for horrible management.

10-29-2009, 11:09 AM	#4
Bad-example College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: san jose CA	the parity's over

10-29-2009, 02:16 PM	#9
Daimyo College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Berkeley	The AFC hasn't had parity for a while now... Indianapolis, New England, and Pittsburgh are pretty much in the top four every year.

10-30-2009, 10:09 AM	#19
MIJB#19 Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Maassluis, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands	Argh, I wanted to vote "no" but accidentally hit "yes"... __________________ * 2005 Golden Scribe winner for best FOF Dynasty about IHOF's Maassluis Merchantmen * Former GM of GEFL's Houston Oilers and WOOF's Curacao Cocktail

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)