SkinsFTW Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Look at the last 5-10 Super Bowl winners. None of them were superior teams. The league today would be owned by the 1985 Patriots and the Bills from the early 90's would be 3-4 time SB winners. The league today is pathetic. (Sorry its late night here and I've been drinking but I am not wrong even though starting a thread on this now might be). But we need to talk about something, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 parity is what makes the nfl the most followed party. how bout the pats 2001-2005 pats, the cowboys, the bronocos. just shut it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted February 6, 2006 Author Share Posted February 6, 2006 parity is what makes the nfl the most followed party. how bout the pats 2001-2005 pats, the cowboys, the bronocos. just shut it And you didnt't know that the NFL was the most followed sport since way before they decided on parity? I'll shut it when you show me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Parity? What parity? Of the 40 Superbowls nearly 75% have been won by only 8 franchises or 25% of the league. The league clearly has a small group of franchises that are consistently good and the rest fight it out for the scraps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsD Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I gotta disagree with you on this. I like parity. I like how every year any team can win the SB. Without a cap I know Snyder would buy up the market and we would be winning all the time but it would only be 4-5 teams in it every year. Seems boring to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Even if teams have consistently won, it doesn't matter. The fact is lower ranked and new teams have a better chance to make the super bowl due to parity. 2003/2004 Panthers? Who would have thought the Seahawks would make it this year? How about the crapshoot Bucs v Radiers or Ravens v Giants super bowls? The Steelers won this game cause they are balanced, if they weren't they wouldnt be able to go through the 3 playoff teams they did. AFC is easily much stronger, and they pushed through all of them. I hated both teams in the bowl, but I give the Steelers props. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSchwartz Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Football is less even than you'd think... And who are you to say the teams that won the Super Bowl weren't superior? Pittsburgh is 13-3 or better this year if Roethlisberger doesn't get hurt. Just like Seattle wasn't as good as their record would indicate, Pittsburgh was BETTER than theirs. And Pittsburgh beat the only other superior team in the Playoffs, so if you wanted a "REAL" Super Bowl you should've watched the Indy/Pit game because that was the best two teams going at it... I dislike the Patriots as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean they haven't been the best team every year they won the Super Bowl, nor does it mean they aren't a GREAT team... A guy on ESPN.com just wrote an article about some NFL myths a couple weeks back check it out, very interesting...includes the issue of "Parity"... "The Real NFL Truth is Out There" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Parity is the best thing that ever happened to this league. Fans get to go into the season thinking they have a shot instead of wondering how many games their team will manage to win knowing the it's going to be the same powerhouse clubs winning the superbowl yet again. That's horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Yeah, I really wish we'd go back to the days when the score of the Super Bowl was 42-10. That was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Look at the last 5-10 Super Bowl winners.None of them were superior teams. The league today would be owned by the 1985 Patriots and the Bills from the early 90's would be 3-4 time SB winners. The league today is pathetic. (Sorry its late night here and I've been drinking but I am not wrong even though starting a thread on this now might be). But we need to talk about something, right? The Patriots weren't the better team in any of their SB wins? The Rams weren't better than the Titans? The Ravens weren't better than the Giants? I'm pretty sure that the answer to all these questions is no. I'm glad the NFL today isn't like the incredibly lame MLB, where teams like the RedSox and Yankees can buy their way into every postseason. It does kinda suck that the teams might not be as good as they could be, but I'd rather see good competition over the all-star teams playing the minor leagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 It's definitely not the same. It's not "parity" that's caused it though. The two main factors are free agency and expansion. Because of free agency, players are more loyal to their agents than they are to their teammates or the fans, and there's no stability from year to year. With expansion, they've added 4 teams in the past 10 years. You have a 53 man roster, so imagine those 212 extra players being available to a 28 team league, and it's obvious why the overall level of talent on each team has been diluted, and thus the level of play. You could still have a salary cap, and there would be no problems if it wasn't for those two factors. Of course, without free agency there would be no salary cap, but that's the bottom line. It used to be without free agency, the teams that drafted best, developed best from within, and had the best coaching would win. If they get rid of the salary cap it will be like baseball, where a handful of teams can just buy themselves championships repeatedly. It all comes down to greed diluting a once great product. Greedy players demanding free agency, and a greedy league expanding beyond the level of available talent with no regard to the product on the field. In other words, fans of the NFL should be glad of "parity" (i.e. revenue sharing and the salary cap) because it's the only thing preventing the league from becoming a total joke. Like a lot of other things in this country, it all went to hell in 1993. :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 And you didnt't know that the NFL was the most followed sport since way before they decided on parity?I'll shut it when you show me otherwise. I remember when the Orioles used to draw 3 million a season. It wasn't all that long ago. In fact, they were still drawing those kinds of numbers in the beginning of their slide. Now they're lucky if they draw 20K to a non-Red Sox/Yankee game (when most of the fans are cheering for the other team). The Ravens sell out every week, every year. Even this one, when they were miserable. The difference? Until Angelos decided not to spend money on payroll anymore, which coincided directly with the Red Sox and Yankees going absolutely bannanas with their payroll, the Orioles had a chance to compete every year. Why are Pittsburgh fans such good football fans - they'll travel with their team around the country- and yet the Pirates can't draw 15K? Because one team can win and the other one can not. So what do you end up with? One sport (baseball), that USED to be the national pastime, is followed in New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, and Los Angeles, and basically nowhere else, and another sport which is the only one that is followed by fans all over the country. BTW, the NBA is the same way. If baseball worked out a system where all 30 teams could comepete on a level playing field, I guarantee you baseball would become as popular as football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Yeah, I really wish we'd go back to the days when the score of the Super Bowl was 42-10. That was fun. At least then you had pretty clear cut MVP's. I didn't feel like anyone should have really been the MVP last night at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Let's see. Pittsburgh has averaged 13 wins a season over the last two years. And they lost to a team coming off a 3 Super Bowls in four years run. I think we are back in the 70s again, with the Patriots playing the part of the Steel Curtain Steelers, the Steelers in the Oakland role and the Colts being the Oilers. The only problem is that the NFC stinks as a conference right now and has for the last few years. Seattle would have been underdogs against every team in the AFC playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Yeah, I really wish we'd go back to the days when the score of the Super Bowl was 42-10. That was fun. Actually, that particular Super Bowl was pretty fun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The problem I see right now is that because of free agency, the players do not stick with the teams for a long time anymore. There is no cohesive unit that a fan can root for year after year, with gradual evolution of the roster. I can remember growing up, where you actually knew the names of all of the players because they didnt change that much from one year to the next. Manley, Grant, Butz, Mann, Olkewicz, Milot, Coleman, Kaufman etc. Now, I'm less likely to want to get 'attached' to a unit because they're probably not going to be together the next year. So instead of rooting for a team of players, we root for a few individuals and the coaching staff. Players used to be like old friends, seeing them out there but now every September I'm like "who's #36? what happened to so and so?" Every year i'm wondering who's a unrestricted free agent, who's a restricted free agent, etc. The team, with a few exceptions, is like a revolving door. I refuse to buy a jersey for a player unless I know that he's locked into a pretty long term contract (ie. I did buy an authentic Portis jersey as soon as it came out). And I've been burned by I dont know how many short term jerseys (Shuler, Frerotte, Coles etc). My buddy has an authentic Smoot and authentic Arrington, both of which will probably be unwearable in a few months. I see thousands of Arrington jerseys at every home game, and plenty of the defunct ones that I mentioned above (plus B. Johnson etc). Do you think anyone in their right mind is about to buy a Ramsey jersey? Ha. The system needs to change so that players can realistically stay with one team for their entire career, and it's less than the norm for a player to switch teams everytime their contract is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 It's definitely not the same. It's not "parity" that's caused it though. The two main factors are free agency and expansion. Because of free agency, players are more loyal to their agents than they are to their teammates or the fans, and there's no stability from year to year. Well, I'd argue that free agency and the cap is pretty much synonymous with parity. It is what evened the playing field. I do agree that expansion has weakened the talent pool somewhat. It used to be without free agency, the teams that drafted best, developed best from within, and had the best coaching would win. And this is still true. Free agency is just another tool in building a team. You still need a good personell man and good coaching to succeed in this league. I don't see crappy teams winning superbowls. If they get rid of the salary cap it will be like baseball, where a handful of teams can just buy themselves championships repeatedly. Not quite. As proven by us in the past, you can't just bring in an assortment of players and expect it to work. Teamwork and chemistry is far more important in football than in baseball. In baseball, you can simply pick up a guy, plug him in, and he's not likely to screw up other guys on your team. That isn't true in football. Now, you'd be able to keep your own guys, and in some ways it would be like the old days, but it would also be more expensive to improve yourself through free agency, since everyone would be more expensive. I think parity was the best thing to happen to the NFL, because now everyone thinks they have a chance. Course, we don't view it that way, because we were one of the 'haves', but I do think it is a good thing. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The problem I see right now is that because of free agency, the players do not stick with the teams for a long time anymore. There is no cohesive unit that a fan can root for year after year, with gradual evolution of the roster. I actually disagree with this. We are a bad example because there has been too much trying to buy Superbowls and coaching turnover, which is going to turn over your roster. Yes, there is probably more roster turnover nowadays than in the past, but for the good teams, it isn't THAT much more. For example, I don't really expect a whole lot of churn in our roster in this offseason. The guys who are free agents are very signable, and the guys who are going to leave are ones that would have been jettisoned pre-free agency due to performance. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 The problem I see right now is that because of free agency, the players do not stick with the teams for a long time anymore. Everyone in DC quotes this like a mantra, but it's really not the case across the league. Free agency means that you have roster turnover every year. But no team has the roster turnover that the Skins have. And it's not the result of free agency; it's the result of a screwy front office. The good teams seem to be able to keep their core group of 15 or so guys together for four to five years. When Tampa Bay finally won, Sapp, Brooks, Barber, Lynch, McFarland, etc had been together for a long, long time. They had added a few guys but the core was the same for at least five years. New England's roster is not THAT dramatically different from its first Super Bowl. Brady, Brushi, Brown, Vinatieri, Vrabel, Harrison have been together for a while. They've lost a few guys like Malloy and added a few guys like Dillon. But there is not that much turnover. The Steelers core group has been together for a while. Bettis, Ward, Randle-El, Hartings, Smith, Fanca, Smith, Hampton, Porter, Farrior, Townsend, etc are the core guys. Roethlisberger, Polamalu, Parker, Taylor and Foote are recent draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Well, I'd argue that free agency and the cap is pretty much synonymous with parity. "Parity" is a hollow buzzword that doesn't really mean anything. When the league was finally forced to cave in on free agency, they negotiated the cap to offset the effects. "Parity" is the way they tried to sell what they knew would be a watered-down product. And this is still true. Free agency is just another tool in building a team. You still need a good personell man and good coaching to succeed in this league. I don't see crappy teams winning superbowls. Not true at all. You draft a player, develop them, they become great (or even just good), and then they demand so much money you can't afford to keep them. Not quite. As proven by us in the past, you can't just bring in an assortment of players and expect it to work. Teamwork and chemistry is far more important in football than in baseball. In baseball, you can simply pick up a guy, plug him in, and he's not likely to screw up other guys on your team. That isn't true in football. Believe me, if they got rid of the cap, you would see New York Yankees-type teams develop instantly in the NFL. We'd probably be one of them, but that doesn't make it good. I think parity was the best thing to happen to the NFL, because now everyone thinks they have a chance. Course, we don't view it that way, because we were one of the 'haves', but I do think it is a good thing.Jason Like I said, it's not "parity", meaning the rules the league has in place to even out the odds for various teams, it's free agency and expansion. Those two things have been good for the players and the owners respectively, because it's made them richer, but it's been bad for football, because it watered down the quality of play on the field dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tastes Like Chicken Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I agree with your statement about the 'core.' But what I'm referring to is not the core, but the entire team. During the 80's, I bet you the turnover was 25% of what it is now, year over year. Look at how we dumped our WRs last offseason and started over. How many years did it take for us to go through Monk-Brown-Garrett-Clark-Sanders etc? How about the Hogs? Do you think our OL will be recognizable in a few years from what it currently is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsRGr8 Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 You are totally right. Parity is killing the NFL and those who don't see the trend are fools. The rating for the SB is down from last year and will continue to decline. Parity equals mediocrity and sooner or later people will get tired of watching most teams playing mediocre football. There are other factors that will contribute to the decline of the NFL but parity is a major one. In 10 years there will be numerous articles about the mistake of parity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I agree with your statement about the 'core.' But what I'm referring to is not the core, but the entire team. During the 80's, I bet you the turnover was 25% of what it is now, year over year. Look at how we dumped our WRs last offseason and started over. How many years did it take for us to go through Monk-Brown-Garrett-Clark-Sanders etc? How about the Hogs? Do you think our OL will be recognizable in a few years from what it currently is? That's true. But it's true in all sports. The NFL is not even close to MLB in the amount of turnover that takes place. You are simply never going to go back to the 1960s where players stayed with one team forever. Mainly because such a system is illegal. As for parity, it's either this or baseball's system that has created four of five super teams, ten possible contenders, and a lot of teams with hope and little else. It's fun for Redskin fans to dream about no salary cap because it's the richest franchise. But it would be devastating to the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
War Paint Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Parity blows. It has ruined the league. Parity is the reason why you can't buy a jersey of your favorite current player because he'll probably be playing for another team in a couple of years. Parity is the reason why the refs can have such a huge impact on a game because when both teams are equal in talent, the refs can tilt the balance when they choose to do so. Parity has made it to where "luck" in regards to a lucky bounce or injuries is the most important factor in wins and losses. The NFL is being operated like a socialist, perhaps even communist goverment. I long for the day when Tags is out of power and there is no cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whlinder Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 Was there really parity this year? I mean there were a lot of good teams, 10+ wins, and a couple of mediocre teams (7-9 wins), and a lot of bad teams. No huge bunch of 8-8 teams like last year when 2 of them made the playoffs. There is parity in that any franchise can compete for a Super Bowl, but this year there was definitely a distinct divide between the good teams and the bad teams. On a one-year level, there was little parity this year, but on a grander scale over the course of several years the NFL has parity in that almost every team has a chance to be the champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.