1xx Reasons Why Parity and the NFL Suck

[Jarv]

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 think the NBA has a process where you can sign your own FA's for less cap space than anothers team's FA's ? Not sure how it works, but I agree, I wish there was less player movement in the NFL.

 

[Sasquatch]

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.

End of debate as far as I'm concerned. Mediocrioty is the result of a dimunituion of talent which is the result of expansion. To improve the product on the field some sort of system must be in place to develop young talent so that they are ready to play when the enter the league.

I do think the continuity and team identity gripes have a more legitimate basis but I predict the future trend will be keeping coaches for longer tenures (Holmgren, Shannahan, Cower, Bellicheck) and teams being identified with the personalities of a head coach as opposed to players. Now, if only the broadcasting would approach game commentary like a competition between two master tacticians, or chess masters, the game might be even more enjoyable to watch.

As for the playoffs being boring, I don't recall many exciting playoffs game before the salary cap when it was foregone conclusion that the two most dominant teams would meet in the championship game or the superbowl. At least there is a level of unpredictability now that keeps things interesting even if it is not our team that is the perennial champion.

 

[Little Jr]

I liked it when there were only 3 or 4 teams who dominated but thats because one of them was the Cowboys.

Overall I like it the way it is. When you have a 5-11 season you dont feel like your light years away as long as you have someone running like it should be ran.


I would say most Cowboy fans like it the way it use to be.

 

[Little Jr]

As for the playoffs being boring, I don't recall many exciting playoffs game before the salary cap when it was foregone conclusion that the two most dominant teams would meet in the championship game or the superbowl. At least there is a level of unpredictability now that keeps things interesting even if it is not our team that is the perennial champion.

Very good point. 92,93,94,95 everone knew it was Dallas or SF who was going to the SB. It didnt mattter who in the AFC because the SB was the NFC chapionship game.

 

[tyke1doe]

Fans complain about a "watered down" league, but at the end of the year, one team walks away with the Super Bowl trophy and if it's your team, you could care less how watered down the league was.

It should also mean that teams like the Dallas Cowboys should be in contention sooner than having to wait more than 20 years (1979 to 1992) between Super Bowls.

I figure with Parcells' master plan, we'll be in contention once we get our defense and offensive line in place, similar to the Steelers and Eagles who were in playoff contention for multiple years.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

It should also mean that teams like the Dallas Cowboys should be in contention sooner than having to wait more than 20 years (1979 to 1992) between Super Bowls.

I ain't no mathematician but 1979 to 1992 isn't more than 20 years.

 

[Pats Fan]

Sorry boys and girls. Money already buys almost everything in life.

Football is a game where if all the good players were on one team, oh please. Forget it. and then they would probably lose anyway because it is also what is in the heart.

I for one like parity.

I can also say, Pittsburgh is the team in the NFL that I dislike the most. Will they probably win. Yes. Seattle, really I don't know that much about them, but I hope they win. Me, an AFC fan until death, rooting for an NFC team. Yep. Anybody else, no. Can you say Palmer??????

And there really isn't any parity. Good draft, good coaching, making the right moves. So now you need brains rather than money to win. Sounds good to me.

And baseball is also starting to come back to reality. MONEY. Well, I didn't win this year. OK. There is more to it than that.

 

[big dog cowboy]

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.

Hard to imagine how bad Denver and Carolina played yesterday. Those were the 2nd best teams in their conferences?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The BIGGEST difference to me is that in the old days, (the early 70's-early 90's for me), is that the team became a part of your family. Roger, Lilly, Randy White, Too Tall, Harvey Martin, Waters and Harris, the list goes on and on. Those guys were YOUR team!! You saw them EVERY season and you grew up and older as they did.

Today is nothing but constant turnover. Quincy, Vinny, Bledsoe, Keyshawn, Terry Glenn, the beat goes on and on. Those guys wear the uniform and the Star on the helmet, but deep down it's not like it used to be, you just know they aren't part of your FAMILY.

 

[ghst187]

another thing is that expansion teams added to diluting the league by spreading good players thin. Just think, there are 65x3 more players in the league than there would've been in the early 90s. That dilutes talent and increases turnover via FA.

Another thing, I think the Pats are very good, but compare their last roster vs our 92-93 roster, esp on defense. In a lot of cases, our backups were better than some of their starters at respective positions.

I don't think there's any doubt that the league has been diluted through expansion teams, salary cap, and free agency. I don't mind salary cap, I think its good. Baseball should have it. Anyone not sick of the stupid Yankees buying the best roster every year? I wasn't a fan of expansion teams and I don't like free agency in the capacity it currently exists, too much turnover currently.

 

[2much2soon]

The BIGGEST difference to me is that in the old days, (the early 70's-early 90's for me), is that the team became a part of your family. Roger, Lilly, Randy White, Too Tall, Harvey Martin, Waters and Harris, the list goes on and on. Those guys were YOUR team!! You saw them EVERY season and you grew up and older as they did.

Today is nothing but constant turnover. Quincy, Vinny, Bledsoe, Keyshawn, Terry Glenn, the beat goes on and on. Those guys wear the uniform and the Star on the helmet, but deep down it's not like it used to be, you just know they aren't part of your FAMILY.

Great post.
This is why MLB lost me as a fan.

 

[Established1971]

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.

You repeatedly say "in 1978." I was not singling this year out, I merely stated this is when the trend began and I have heard countless times from fans and experts how the year in which they are saying the point is some point in time where "parity" is reigning. I heard it in 1978, 1979, 1980.....85...87...91...93..96...99..00...01...02...05

 

[MichaelWinicki]

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.

True. They were awful.

 

[Cbz40]

True. They were awful.

It's ashame, I remember so many championship games, whether the Cowboys were in them or not, you were on the edge of your seat from start to finish.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

I rather enjoyed watching the Panthers get punked. Every mediot has been on their tip for far too long. A one dimensional offense and a D that has an extremely overrated secondary.

However, I know what you guys mean. Would have been nice to see a shootout or a defensive slugfest.

 

[Sasquatch]

The BIGGEST difference to me is that in the old days, (the early 70's-early 90's for me), is that the team became a part of your family. Roger, Lilly, Randy White, Too Tall, Harvey Martin, Waters and Harris, the list goes on and on. Those guys were YOUR team!! You saw them EVERY season and you grew up and older as they did.

Today is nothing but constant turnover. Quincy, Vinny, Bledsoe, Keyshawn, Terry Glenn, the beat goes on and on. Those guys wear the uniform and the Star on the helmet, but deep down it's not like it used to be, you just know they aren't part of your FAMILY.

What if your family sucked year in and year out?

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

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.

You can say that again. That's another reason why I wrote this thread. Two of the worst Conference Championship games I've seen. Snooze fests. Nothing like those classic Dallas and San Fran battles only a decade ago. Now THAT was football!

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

This seems to be a good thread to place my 2-cents into ...

Mediocrity, parity, and watered-down are not exactly words that roll off my tongue when I look back and compare various aspects of the NFL -- then and now. However, some of you hold some interesting positions on the subject.

Let's examine some of those thoughts.

The family perspective -- I buy it!

...in the old days, (the early 70's-early 90's), teams became a part of your family. Roger, Lilly, Randy White, Too Tall, etc ... those guys were YOUR team!! Versus ...today's frequent player turnovers Quincy, Vinny, Bledsoe, Keyshawn, Terry Glenn, the beat goes on and on. Those guys wear the uniform and the Star on the helmet, but deep down it's not like it used to be, you just know they aren't part of your FAMILY.

This is such a valid point -- and I agree with you. However, I also understand the multiple variables that make up that dynamic; causing many NFL player names to be removed from households. Such as, players that have been identified/not yet identified as substance abusers, DUI, gun charges, domestic abusers, etc. No team in the NFL is exempted from having lower ethical standards than NFL teams did in the early 70'-early 90's -- even though they had their problems also.

Money -- I buy it!

"Money already buys almost everything in life ...Football is a game where if all the good players were on one team, oh please. Forget it. and then they would probably lose anyway because it is also what is in the heart."

This Perspective has merit because salary caps, FAs, drafts, and trades are all about the Benjamins (a term used to describe Benjamin Franklin on good old U.S. of "A" currency! Players hold more allegiance today than "back in the day" because of money. In the earlier days, players weren't getting the "big" money that is dangled in front of them these days. If the money is right
the player doesn't care much about staying with a team -- even if he likes the team, money can make players walk! A typical example of that is TO.

The Excitement Comparison -- I don't buy it!

It's ashame, I remember so many championship games, whether the Cowboys were in them or not, you were on the edge of your seat from start to finish.

This one could go either way, because I still think NFL games are exciting; some regular season games are more exciting than championship games, but you have to put things into perspective. Many of the "exciting" games were that, because emphasis was placed more on the running/ground attack than an air assault. Oh, you had you big name receivers, but you had more Jim Browns, Walter Paytons, Herschel Walkers, Emmit Smith Tony Dorsett, Riggins for the Skins, etc ... The game is still exciting!

The reality for me is that we now live in an NFL world where the game is actually better. Players are more specialized (not having to play both sides of the ball); and are millionaires (they still love the game, because many of them could stop playing and have enough in investments, and other business ventures to last for the rest of their life).

If I had to identify anything, I would mention having a specialized NFL Official school; full time, an attempot to reduce the number of bad calls in the NFL and minimize controversial decisions (has anyone ever seen the TV commerical depicting the Budweiser Official school of Football Officials? It's hilarious). And, I would also add at least one more new NFL franchise team in every division/conference.

Here's something that offers a bit of improvement since the earlier football days ...the Cheerleader squad ...

That may have been 3-cents

 

[Doomsday]

Pitt isnt your average 6th seed this team was 15-1 last year and had some injuries this year. They are a very good team that got healthy and hot at the right time.

 

[stag hunter]

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.



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.



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?



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.

My thoughts exactly.. I think the reason most people here have beef with "parity" in todays NFL is because its precludes the Cowboys from having 20 straight winning seasons or a couple of super bowl berths per decade. If the Cowboys had somehow bumbled their way into the playoffs this year or the one before it, there would be absolutely no threads like this.