Parity and the cap

[Cattle_Rancher]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL. The cap started in the 94 season. So I counted how many teams went to SB before the 94 season which was the 95 SB and how many went after. In the first 28 SBs no cap you had 21 different teams 12 different winners make it in the last 25 SBs 21 different team 14 different winners. In the first 28 there were 10 of what I consider small market teams in the last there were 12. So where is this great parity the cap was supposed to bring about the BS line any year your team could make it to the big game. Sure some of the teams have changed but it seems like you still have the top of the pack middle class and bottom feeders.

 

[Bullflop]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL. The cap started in the 94 season. So I counted how many teams went to SB before the 94 season which was the 95 SB and how many went after. In the first 28 SBs no cap you had 21 different teams 12 different winners make it in the last 25 SBs 21 different team 14 different winners. In the first 28 there were 10 of what I consider small market teams in the last there were 12. So where is this great parity the cap was supposed to bring about the BS line any year your team could make it to the big game. Sure some of the teams have changed but it seems like you still have the top of the pack middle class and bottom feeders.

I think what has taken place nowadays is that there will always be teams that are poorly managed, some that are mediocre and others that have extremely sound management to ensure their success level, regardless of the cap limitations. Also, the number of teams has increased to the point of causing rosters to be watered down to a point where expert scouting is more crucial than ever for the poorly run teams to keep pace.

There may never be a sure-fire way to ensure absolute parity, unless the management skills of each team somehow become of equal quality. That's, actually, highly unlikely in a world where human skills are so variable. Anyway, that's how I see it.

 

[Hadenough]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL. The cap started in the 94 season. So I counted how many teams went to SB before the 94 season which was the 95 SB and how many went after. In the first 28 SBs no cap you had 21 different teams 12 different winners make it in the last 25 SBs 21 different team 14 different winners. In the first 28 there were 10 of what I consider small market teams in the last there were 12. So where is this great parity the cap was supposed to bring about the BS line any year your team could make it to the big game. Sure some of the teams have changed but it seems like you still have the top of the pack middle class and bottom feeders.

Did you notice the cap was created when Dallas had a dynasty. The Cowboys havent won anything since so I guess the cap achieved its hidden purpose.

 

[Bullflop]

Did you notice the cap was created when Dallas had a dynasty. The Cowboys havent won anything since so I guess the cap achieved its hidden purpose.

I'm not convinced that the cap was part of a diabolical scheme to thwart the Cowboys from having a dynasty so much as it was creating a way to make more money by making teams more competitive. Seems to me that's what the NFL is all about, more than anything else -- money.

 

[Cattle_Rancher]

Did you notice the cap was created when Dallas had a dynasty. The Cowboys havent won anything since so I guess the cap achieved its hidden purpose.

Go look at the masterminds of the cap and you will find one Jerry Jones with his finger prints all over it.

 

[Fizziksman]

Go look at the masterminds of the cap and you will find one Jerry Jones with his finger prints all over it.

yeah it was created so owners can get a much bigger piece of the pie than the players.

 

[Cattle_Rancher]

I'm not convinced that the cap was part of a diabolical scheme to thwart the Cowboys from having a dynasty so much as it was creating a way to make more money by making teams more competitive. Seems to me that's what the NFL is all about, more than anything else -- money.

I agree I think the cap had a lot more to do with making money than anything else. In a way to me it has ruined the NFL gone are the days when most players played for one team and fans could really latch on to a player.

 

[Cattle_Rancher]

yeah it was created so owners can get a much bigger piece of the pie than the players.

Totally agree

 

[John813]

Not all 32 teams have equal talent when it comes to the Owners, GMs and coaches.
Some don't have proper visions, and throw away money on overrated players who don't live up to their deals and the team sucks. And their draft philosophy is non existent, either taking huge gambles or not drafting for their schemes.
Others have bad coaches that can't properly manage their talent correctly.
And sometimes bad luck happens in terms of injuries.
IMO the Raiders in 2016 could of made some noise in the playoffs. But week 16 Carr breaks his leg/ankle. They go from favorites to nobodies in a play.

So much has to go right for teams. Drafting has to be on point, and also making sure your paid players are still in their prime and not declining.
Got to survive the year without crucial injuries. Still amazed the Eagles pulled it off 2 years ago.

New England has had the same coach, "GM" and QB for 2 decades now. And those two will be known as one of the best at their respective spots.

 

[Diehardblues]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL. The cap started in the 94 season. So I counted how many teams went to SB before the 94 season which was the 95 SB and how many went after. In the first 28 SBs no cap you had 21 different teams 12 different winners make it in the last 25 SBs 21 different team 14 different winners. In the first 28 there were 10 of what I consider small market teams in the last there were 12. So where is this great parity the cap was supposed to bring about the BS line any year your team could make it to the big game. Sure some of the teams have changed but it seems like you still have the top of the pack middle class and bottom feeders.

The Salary Cap intention was to continue or uphold Parity not create it.

There was fear with Unlimited Free Agency that with no Salary Cap the wealthier larger market teams could stockpile talent throwing off the Parity which was already in place due to the NFL Equal TV revenue sharing which is still in place.

It appears with the facts you’ve presented that Parity has been preserved.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

The cap wasn’t created for parity. It was created to give owners an excuse to not spend too much money. Parity is just the marketing buzzword that was used to sell the concept to fans.

 

[Rockport]

I agree I think the cap had a lot more to do with making money than anything else. In a way to me it has ruined the NFL gone are the days when most players played for one team and fans could really latch on to a player.

T. Smith, Lee, Witten, Martin, Fred, Heath, Dak. There are still many players who stay with one team. Without the salary cap, you would have rich owners buying all the best FA’s and have even more movement and relegating teams owned by less affluent to the bottom of the standings. Consistently.

 

[Diehardblues]

I agree I think the cap had a lot more to do with making money than anything else. In a way to me it has ruined the NFL gone are the days when most players played for one team and fans could really latch on to a player.

Unlimited Free Agency changed the days when a player stayed with one team. It’s what the league feared was the potential of wealthier large market teams stockpiling talent.

The Salary Cap did present some side effects which had to be managed and in turn had some effects on how teams were built and maintained . It basically provides a fixed budget for teams.

It also lessened the depth on rosters . Teams could no longer afford to retain all of their veterans needing to churn rosters because the Rookie contracts are more affordable. It’s a continuous revolving door now balancing retaining elite talent with an ever ending search for affordable talent.

It’s what I’ve defined as watering down the depth while still having cream at the top. It’s placed more value on Elite QB’s since you have to pay them. The more talented they are the more they can elevate less expensive talent around them.

Great defenses can still be built but you can’t retain them. The windows for success are much more limited now. If you build a talented team you’d better win fast before you have to pay most of them.

 

[Diehardblues]

The cap wasn’t created for parity. It was created to give owners an excuse to not spend too much money. Parity is just the marketing buzzword that was used to sell the concept to fans.

The fact some fans are missing is the NFL already had Parity. The Salary Cap was implemented to preserve Parity.

 

[mcmvp]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL. The cap started in the 94 season. So I counted how many teams went to SB before the 94 season which was the 95 SB and how many went after. In the first 28 SBs no cap you had 21 different teams 12 different winners make it in the last 25 SBs 21 different team 14 different winners. In the first 28 there were 10 of what I consider small market teams in the last there were 12. So where is this great parity the cap was supposed to bring about the BS line any year your team could make it to the big game. Sure some of the teams have changed but it seems like you still have the top of the pack middle class and bottom feeders.

Instead of using the SB as your barometer for measuring parity, I would use playoff appearances...or how many times did teams go from worst to first in their division before the cap vs after.

 

[DallasEast]

parity noun
1 : the quality or state of being equal or equivalent
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parity

Comparing the number of Super Bowl champions in the pre- and post-era 1993 league collective bargaining agreement is not a reasonable equivalency. The assumption is that the league, a collection of teams (currently totaling 32), is more competitive between more teams on an annual basis. Contrasting any differences between the collective champions for each era with each other is not what the term means for the NFL.

A better, more accurate way of understanding parity is both reviewing how many different teams are consistently vying for playoff appearances from season-to-season. Not just the various combinations of teams making the playoffs each postseason but seemingly appear as viable entries in the latter half of each season.

In the pre-salary cap era, it was a given that a smaller number of certain teams would make the playoffs from season-to-season. The result was a byproduct of stable, mostly static rosters, having sound tenured coaching and sustained by insightful management. A much smaller number of teams assembled a greater overall percentage of the league's player talent and retained their monopoly over longer periods of time.

In contrast, the post-salary cap era ushered in much larger player movement between teams--including a greater quantities of upper echelon talented players. Rosters became more fluid. What sound coaching and insightful management used to take for granted became an after-thought.

Putting together a smaller core of upper tier players with a workable cast of supporting teammates and a good or better coach, along with good health, became the norm for greater numbers of teams to make runs for postseason appearances. Before that fateful ratified CBA, some fans of certain franchises 'knew' their teams would make the playoffs while many fans felt their teams had no chance of reaching the playoffs before the season began and were very often right.

In the current era of the salary cap, more fans of more franchises 'know' their team might make the playoffs, might make a playoff run, and might reach or even win the Super Bowl. The competitiveness of the league overall became reality in this era. That is the actual definition of parity in today's NFL. And the league has capitalized on engaging many more fans through parity in the form of BILLION$.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL.

Some but you have to remember not all 32 teams are trying to win a super bowl each year. The ownership of many teams treat their teams strictly as a business. The goal of any business is to make money.

For example, my bro-in-law used to have season tickets to the Bengals. Knew the Brown family very well. Was very involved in everything Bengals. Suddenly he dropped everything a few years ago. Said he just realized the Browns just wanted his money and were never going to be serious about winning a championship. I tried to tell him all along this was the case and that the Browns had to LOVE Jerry Jones for making them a ton of extra money each year. He didn't give me credit, but said he had a light bulb moment.

If you look at some teams across the league you will see there are several that operate that way. So you ask if the cap brought parity....yes for a majority of the league but not league wide.

 

[Whyjerry]

So I was curious how much parity has the cap really brought to the NFL. The cap started in the 94 season. So I counted how many teams went to SB before the 94 season which was the 95 SB and how many went after. In the first 28 SBs no cap you had 21 different teams 12 different winners make it in the last 25 SBs 21 different team 14 different winners. In the first 28 there were 10 of what I consider small market teams in the last there were 12. So where is this great parity the cap was supposed to bring about the BS line any year your team could make it to the big game. Sure some of the teams have changed but it seems like you still have the top of the pack middle class and bottom feeders.

Parity? Look at the team that have dominated the last 25 years. NE, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Green Bay, Denver...They all share the same DNA - Good ownership, Good coaching, and good QB play.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I'm not convinced that the cap was part of a diabolical scheme to thwart the Cowboys from having a dynasty so much as it was creating a way to make more money by making teams more competitive. Seems to me that's what the NFL is all about, more than anything else -- money.

Well duh! It’s a business. The sooner everyone realizes and accepts this fact, the better off they’ll be. Every owner wants to win, but the biggest goal is to line their pockets.

 

[Diehardblues]

Some but you have to remember not all 32 teams are trying to win a super bowl each year. The ownership of many teams treat their teams strictly as a business. The goal of any business is to make money.

For example, my bro-in-law used to have season tickets to the Bengals. Knew the Brown family very well. Was very involved in everything Bengals. Suddenly he dropped everything a few years ago. Said he just realized the Browns just wanted his money and were never going to be serious about winning a championship. I tried to tell him all along this was the case and that the Browns had to LOVE Jerry Jones for making them a ton of extra money each year. He didn't give me credit, but said he had a light bulb moment.

If you look at some teams across the league you will see there are several that operate that way. So you ask if the cap brought parity....yes for a majority of the league but not league wide.

True but it allows all teams to be competitive if they choose to be. And the Cap didn’t bring Parity. It’s intent was to maintain it.

Parity was created from the NFL Equal TV revenue. And how small market teams were and are still able to compete financially on same level if they choose to.

The Cap and new revenue streams don’t place as much importance on winning to make money. All teams in the NFL make money now despite results on the field.