1xx Reasons Why Parity and the NFL Suck

[TruBlueCowboy]

Don't know about you folks, but watching this new young Cowboys squad and its ups and downs this year has made me realize more than ever how much parity exists in this league. It wasn't as obvious when we had all those bad years after Jimmy left. I always felt like most of the league was above us then, but it was really only because of terrible draft picks and free agent signings. Now that we have a man in place how is making sure we rebuild the right way, I realize how close teams are in this league. With a better kicker and a healthy Flozell Adams, I truly feel we'd be in the thick of things with Seattle yesterday.

Is anyone else getting a little frustrated with this league and its parity? I feel like I'm watching a watered down league now. I don't feel like I'm watching the Steel Curtain, Doomsday Defense, or any of the great units in NFL history. As long as player sizes were equal, the best teams in today's NFL don't seem like they would last long with some of the past great dynasties.

So without further ado, for all you fellow NFL fans who are jaded with the shape of today's NFL, feel free to keep adding to the list of "1xx reasons why parity in the NFL sucks."

#1 The 6th Seed is going to the Super Bowl.

#2 Not only that, but it won three away games in a row to get to the big one!

#3 There wasn't a single team in the NFC Playoffs that really scared me, especially the conference championship teams. I thought the Cowboys, who struggled the entire second half of the season, could have beat all of them.

#4 A team that almost went 16-0 was kicked out of the Playoffs in its first game.

#5 The Seahawks are in the Super Bowl.

#6 Larry Allen, Keyshawn Johnson, La'Roi Glover and Greg Ellis all have a great chance of not returning next year for salary cap reason, even though they'd make great depth if nothing else.

#7 New England just got finished winning 3 Super Bowks but I still feel like any Super Bowl winning team from from mid-90's and before would whip their butts.

#8 I saw more game lost this year on ESPN highlights due to crappy kickers, than I did the entire 25 year run on ESPN.

#9 Again, the Seahawks are in the Super Bowl. That's still a hard one to shake. When the Cardinals make it, I'll be checkin' for flying pigs.

#10 Most of the teams in this league are 1 or 2 injuries away from going from 11-5 to 5-11 or vice versa.

#11 Emmitt didn't retire a Cowboy.

#12 If the streak continues, odds are whoever loses the Super Bowl in two weeks won't be in the Playoffs next season.

Feel free to add.....

 

[baj1dallas]

Nope I think it's great to have a league where teams like Seattle and Pittsburgh get to the Superbowl. I think it sucks when the same 3-4 teams dominate every year.

 

[Echo9]

Nope I think it's great to have a league where teams like Seattle and Pittsburgh get to the Superbowl. I think it sucks when the same 3-4 teams dominate every year.

I didn't have a problem with it as loog as the Cowboys were one of those 3-4 teams.

 

[kingwhicker]

The # 1 reason is that the Cowboys don't win anything of any significance anymore.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

I didn't have a problem with it as loog as the Cowboys were one of those 3-4 teams.

:laugh2:

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I thought the playoffs up to this point were some of the lamest I've ever seen.

 

[Ashwynn]

The only reason Salary Cap sucks is we cant buy anymore superbowls, like we did in 95.

 

[Juke99]

Parity is the code word for mediocrity.

The product has been watered down so that the NFL could get the casual fan to root for their local team...It's all about money...and what better way to garner more fan interest than to level the playing field, even if it's done artificially.

For me, I found it much more entertaining to have a few teams that were good and underdogs trying to knock them off.

One of the great games in the history of the NFL was Super Bowl III and it wasn't even a great game...it WAS however, great drama. The underdog Jets defeated the mighty Colts.

Today, that game doesn't happen.

The NFL did enough by having teams draft in reverse order...then came Free Agency (which I don't mind BUT I do think teams should be allowed to spend over the cap to sign their own players)...then came reverse order scheduling (which has actually became a victim of NFL socialism...there is no relevance from one season to the next when it comes to records).

Teams have no personality because players move so much...IN the past....The Purple People Eaters...The Killer B's...Doomsday...The Fearsome Foursome....but now, players don't stay around long enough for teams to have a personality.

Oh well...it's still the best sport on the planet though....just not as good as it could be

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Similar to a thread I made a few weeks ago about missing the old days.

One of the worst things is, like you pointed out, seems every team is an injury or 2 from mediocrity. The cap makes it impossible to hold on to your younger players and continue to develop them for added depth.

 

[Ashwynn]

Similar to a thread I made a few weeks ago about missing the old days.

One of the worst things is, like you pointed out, seems every team is an injury or 2 from mediocrity. The cap makes it impossible to hold on to your younger players and continue to develop them for added depth.

Well as a skins fan, I would really hate no salary cap. The way Snyder throws his money around, could you imagine the star studded roster they would have by now, course I doubt it would help them much, buying stars has never paid off for the skins.

 

[Established1971]

Don't know about you folks, but watching this new young Cowboys squad and its ups and downs this year has made me realize more than ever how much parity exists in this league.

I just stopped reading after this first sentence. Let me give you some perspective. I began watching football a bit around 1968 but really began in 1971. In 1978 a bunch of things happened at one time. It was two years after a round of expansion. They increased the schedule from 14 games to 16.
The added a round of wild card playoff games. They changed a bunch of rules to help the offenses. Right at this point I began hearing the phrase "parity". It has not stopped since then. Maybe 500 times since 1978 I have heard writers, commentators, talking heads and fans mention how there is parity. Every time they say it, they say it as if it is some discovery of theirs, and they say it as if it is some new development. This is a silly non-point, and frankly I have to ask, will people EVER stop making this point.
Before 1978 we did have a string of dominant teams like the Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Dolphins and Steelers. There have been more since then - 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots and to a lesser extent Packers and Broncos. Overall it seems the amount of dominance has lessened somewhat but not a great deal.
Is it good or bad? Thats your call. Dominance is great when its one of your teams dominating. But parity has been around a good 28 years and it is here to stay, so to me talking about it is like talking about how the football seems a little more oblong than it used to be.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Don't know about you folks, but watching this new young Cowboys squad and its ups and downs this year has made me realize more than ever how much parity exists in this league.

I just stopped reading after this first sentence. Let me give you some perspective. I began watching football a bit around 1968 but really began in 1971. In 1978 a bunch of things happened at one time. It was two years after a round of expansion. They increased the schedule from 14 games to 16.
The added a round of wild card playoff games. They changed a bunch of rules to help the offenses. Right at this point I began hearing the phrase "parity". It has not stopped since then. Maybe 500 times since 1978 I have heard writers, commentators, talking heads and fans mention how there is parity. Every time they say it, they say it as if it is some discovery of theirs, and they say it as if it is some new development. This is a silly non-point, and frankly I have to ask, will people EVER stop making this point.
Before 1978 we did have a string of dominant teams like the Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Dolphins and Steelers. There have been more since then - 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots and to a lesser extent Packers and Broncos. Overall it seems the amount of dominance has lessened somewhat but not a great deal.
Is it good or bad? Thats your call. Dominance is great when its one of your teams dominating. But parity has been around a good 28 years and it is here to stay, so to me talking about it is like talking about how the football seems a little more oblong than it used to be.

Nope. Don't agree with ya at all. Nothing like 1978.

In 1978, teams did not go from 3-13 to 13-3 AND win the Super Bowl nearly as much as they do now.

In 1978, the Super Bowl loser was not guaranteed to miss the Playoffs the next year because of how even teams are nowadays.

In 1978, teams still had quality depth, and it was only their only fault for bad drafting if they didn't, not because the league cap forced them to kick off any player who made over a million and didn't get big starter minutes.

In 1978, you had just gotten done with the Dolphins, the Steelers were in progress, and the Cowboys were kicking tail in the NFC, you knew who the dynasties were, I can only tell ya of one dynasty over the last 8 years in today's NFL.

Sorry, I know folks will always say the same thing, but you can't tell me today's league hasn't been watered down. There is very little difference between the top half of the league right now.

 

[Juke99]

Don't know about you folks, but watching this new young Cowboys squad and its ups and downs this year has made me realize more than ever how much parity exists in this league.

I just stopped reading after this first sentence. Let me give you some perspective. I began watching football a bit around 1968 but really began in 1971. In 1978 a bunch of things happened at one time. It was two years after a round of expansion. They increased the schedule from 14 games to 16.
The added a round of wild card playoff games. They changed a bunch of rules to help the offenses. Right at this point I began hearing the phrase "parity". It has not stopped since then. Maybe 500 times since 1978 I have heard writers, commentators, talking heads and fans mention how there is parity. Every time they say it, they say it as if it is some discovery of theirs, and they say it as if it is some new development. This is a silly non-point, and frankly I have to ask, will people EVER stop making this point.
Before 1978 we did have a string of dominant teams like the Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Dolphins and Steelers. There have been more since then - 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots and to a lesser extent Packers and Broncos. Overall it seems the amount of dominance has lessened somewhat but not a great deal.
Is it good or bad? Thats your call. Dominance is great when its one of your teams dominating. But parity has been around a good 28 years and it is here to stay, so to me talking about it is like talking about how the football seems a little more oblong than it used to be.

My gripe isn't about dominance...it's about teams being able to stay together long enough to have a personality...

In a lot of ways, it's no longer rooting for a team but rooting for a uniform.

I'd be ok with all the new rules IF teams were allowed to spend over the cap to sign players that have drafted.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

My gripe isn't about dominance...it's about teams being able to stay together long enough to have a personality...

In a lot of ways, it's no longer rooting for a team but rooting for a uniform.

I'd be ok with all the new rules IF teams were allowed to spend over the cap to sign players that have drafted.

Exactly.
Just as an example : Pierce, Smoot, and Bailey would have all been likely resigned. Now granted other players would not have been acquired through FA (Portis, Moss, etc).

Seems like teams every year are drafting to fill holes left from FA, instead of building on the team they already have. Makes the draft that much less of an impact really.

 

[Juke99]

Exactly.
Just as an example : Pierce, Smoot, and Bailey would have all been likely resigned. Now granted other players would not have been acquired through FA (Portis, Moss, etc).

Seems like teams every year are drafting to fill holes left from FA, instead of building on the team they already have. Makes the draft that much less of an impact really.

Ultimately, it's become more like college football in that coaches have to be able to manage roster turnover every year.

Ya know, I was watching an old Cowboy game...Frank Gifford said, "That hand off was to Preston Pearson, he's the only player on this team who has played for another team." Imagine that.

 

[NinePointOh]

I feel like I'm watching a watered down league now.

If the gripe is that the league has become "watered down," the problem is with expansion, not the salary cap. A 20-25 team league with the same salary cap would result in a significantly higher concentration of talent per roster.

#1 The 6th Seed is going to the Super Bowl.

#2 Not only that, but it won three away games in a row to get to the big one!

They also went 11-5 in the regular season, which might have made them the #2 seed in the NFC. They had a top 10 offense, a top 5 defense, and a year ago, they went 15-1. Pittsburgh is hardly a pushover team.

#5 The Seahawks are in the Super Bowl.

I don't get it. How does it make the league better or more interesting to have one team stay lousy for its entire existance?

#11 Emmitt didn't retire a Cowboy.

Technically, he did, since we signed him to a ceremonial one day contract when he retired. At any rate, though, the reason he finished his career in Arizona had much less to do with the salary cap than it did with his desire to be a starter. We would have kept him if he'd wanted to play as a backup, but he didn't.

 

[Zaxor]

Parity is the code word for mediocrity.

The product has been watered down so that the NFL could get the casual fan to root for their local team...It's all about money...and what better way to garner more fan interest than to level the playing field, even if it's done artificially.

For me, I found it much more entertaining to have a few teams that were good and underdogs trying to knock them off.

One of the great games in the history of the NFL was Super Bowl III and it wasn't even a great game...it WAS however, great drama. The underdog Jets defeated the mighty Colts.

Today, that game doesn't happen.

The NFL did enough by having teams draft in reverse order...then came Free Agency (which I don't mind BUT I do think teams should be allowed to spend over the cap to sign their own players)...then came reverse order scheduling (which has actually became a victim of NFL socialism...there is no relevance from one season to the next when it comes to records).

Teams have no personality because players move so much...IN the past....The Purple People Eaters...The Killer B's...Doomsday...The Fearsome Foursome....but now, players don't stay around long enough for teams to have a personality.

Oh well...it's still the best sport on the planet though....just not as good as it could be

Juke,

No joking I would have written the same thing (just not so nice)

 

[TheHustler]

#11 Emmitt didn't retire a Cowboy.

Didn't he sign a 1 day contract?

 

[wileedog]

If the gripe is that the league has become "watered down," the problem is with expansion, not the salary cap. A 20-25 team league with the same salary cap would result in a significantly higher concentration of talent per roster.

WHile I agree with you, I think lack of continuity also contributes to the more mediocre level of football. By the time teams start to gel together and make some noise several of the players contracts come due and they depart as FAs, and younger, cheaper, no experience talent has to take over.

I think the cap is a necessary evil, but I really think the level of play would actually increase too by putting in a system to make it easier for teams to sign their own FAs. The Franchise Player was a good start, but not nearly good enough.

I don't get it. How does it make the league better or more interesting to have one team stay lousy for its entire existance?

I have trouble with that one too.

Its all well and good to miss the glory days when you're a Dallas fan. However, there are many fans of many other teams who probably don't feel so nostalgic about those years.

 

[Cbz40]

The two league championship games yesterday were nothing but boring. Both games were decided by the end of the 1st half.

Parity = mediocrity.....and in many cases just plain bad football.