NFL Parity

[Hoofbite]

Well, that's kind of the point of parity. The teams are so equal that one fluke play is often the difference between winning and losing.

Which is probably what would happen in the NBA and MLB if they didn't have 7 games to determine who moves on. The very fact that game 7's even exist is a testament to the fact that the teams are fairly evenly matched, is it not?

During Dallas' 3 Super Bowl winning seasons of the 90's, they won all 9 playoff games by 10 points or more. But now, every single one of the past 12 Super Bowl champions had at least 1 playoff game (sometimes more) that went down to the wire - and in many cases, it was the Super Bowl itself that went down to the wire. That's the point of parity.

Is it? The point of parity is to make at least 1 of the postseason games close? That's parity to you? That'd be news to me because my impression of parity was to give teams a chance to go from zero to hero in a short span of time. Parity is now defined by giving good teams a better chance against the great teams? Okay.

Ah, but the problem with that line of reasoning is that it has not always been that way historically. In the 10 Super Bowls from 21 to 30, which was pretty much the final decade before parity and the salary cap really got started, you had a total of 9 different teams appearing in the Super Bowl and only 4 winners.

And the 80's were a hell of a time if you were fan of the Lakers or Celtics. 5 teams appeared in the NBA Finals, and 4 won. Compare that to the last 6 years.

Fact is, the leagues are all growing. Championships are no longer determined solely by market size.

 

[Rogah]

Is it? The point of parity is to make at least 1 of the postseason games close?

Yes. Part of the point of parity is to not have one team steamroll all the others like we saw time and again in the 80's and 90's.

And it's doing what it is supposed to.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Parity = most teams are 3-7(4) 4-6(8)or 5-5(8)..... Awesome!

 

[Rogah]

Parity = most teams are 3-7(4) 4-6(8)or 5-5(8)..... Awesome!

Uh, you do realize that for every game someone loses, someone else wins, right?

If there are a bunch of .500 or worse teams in the league, that means the wins are being "hogged" by a few stellar teams. By an amazing coincidence, we have the first time in history two 10-0 teams.

What exactly is it that you complainers want? You complain there is no excellence anymore, but if you want excellence, you're going to see an overload of mediocrity (which is what we see this year).

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Uh, you do realize that for every game someone loses, someone else wins, right?

If there are a bunch of .500 or worse teams in the league, that means the wins are being "hogged" by a few stellar teams. By an amazing coincidence, we have the first time in history two 10-0 teams.

What exactly is it that you complainers want? You complain there is no excellence anymore, but if you want excellence, you're going to see an overload of mediocrity (which is what we see this year).

Uh, no!

 

[Rogah]

Uh, no!

Answer the question: You're doing a lot of complaining, so what exactly is it that your want?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Answer the question: You're doing a lot of complaining, so what exactly is it that your want?

No.

 

[Rogah]

No.

Ok, my bad. I thought you wanted to discuss the issue. I didn't realize you were just trolling.

Anyways, I invite any of the other complainers to answer the same question and tell us all precisely what it is that they want from the system that they're not getting.

 

[Risen Star]

NFL parity sucks. It simply a league mandated watering down of the product to create competition. Lower the level of play so more teams can remain in the mix.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Ok, my bad. I thought you wanted to discuss the issue. I didn't realize you were just trolling.

Anyways, I invite any of the other complainers to answer the same question and tell us all precisely what it is that they want from the system that they're not getting.

Troll.

 

[Rogah]

Assuming NE wins tonight, there will be only 4 teams in the AFC and 5 teams in the NFC with winning records.

What is it that you want to see that you're not seeing?

 

[BotchedLobotomy]

What is it that you want to see that you're not seeing?

I can tell you what I don't want to see, 23 teams out of 32 teams without a winning record.

 

[Rogah]

I can tell you what I don't want to see, 23 teams out of 32 teams without a winning record.

But wait a second.... people always say they want to see great teams and this year we the unprecedented situation of two 10-0 teams, not to mention 3 other teams at 8-2. That's 5 great teams all competing in the league at the same time. Isn't that what you want? But guess what? When 5 teams are hogging all the wins, you're going to have an abnormally large number of mediocre also-rans.

Honest question (and try to take away team loyalties and hatreds when answering): Would you rather have 5 great teams with 8 or more wins at this point in the season, or would you rather those 5 teams were all 7-3 and 6-4, and the wins you've taken away were given to other teams such that 23 teams are .500 or above?

 

[Longboysfan]

Why are you on here and not looking into my new car??

Do you have one in a hatch back?