Who here likes NFL parity???

[DallasEast]

In the long term, when you go back and look at a particular teams accomplishment, you always want to be able to compare apples to apples. With the advent of the salary cap and free agency, its now turned into trying to compare apples with oranges.

Correction: it used to be comparing apples to oranges. With the current parity, it's like comparing apples with apples.

If I could swing this around a bit. Which is more impressive then. The Dallas team loaded with top to bottom talent winning 3 superbowls in 4 years, or the New England team in the era of parity winning 3 of 4?

Hmmm...

A: A legendary team which manhandled its opponents from game one through the Super Bowl for multiple years?

B: Or a team lucky enough to succeed via a tuck rule and a Hall of Fame kicker?

Regis, I'm going with A. Final answer.

I also think asking the question on how we as Cowboy fans feel about parity is going to get a bit of a biased answer seeing as how the Cowboys have had some of the greatest dynasties ever.

Bias? John Wayne said it best.

Not hardly.

When it comes down to it however, parity was the correct decision for the NFL. As a business, it is a smashing success. Owners are getting richer, players are getting paid way better...Is the product on the field better?

Leveling out the talent across the franchises has insured fan loyalty and growth. That's not questionable. For those who love football played at its best with the best rosters imaginable, the 'awe aspect' has been replaced with the yearly hope that if you're lucky enough to have good chemistry, health and luck, your team (insert your team's name here:_____________) can (maybe) win a championship.

Is that what real football should be? It is now, but it wasn't always like that. I love the sport, so I'll take what's being offered now, but that concession doesn't stop me from missing what the NFL has lost either.

 

[DallasEast]

There is enough evidence to proclaim parity a business success for now.

I'm skeptical that it is a wise long-term strategy. I suspect that team-specific fan loyalty will erode over time, and the sport will become more vulnerable as fans become more fickle.

As have I, but I would suggest that the fickle factor has been increasing steadily over the past decade. IMO, in the past, fan loyalty centered on an individual team and the sport.

As the sport grows, it seems that as more fans hop on the NFL bandwagon, fan loyalty has been gravitating more towards the aura of the sport and less towards the devoted fanship of an individual team. I'm old enough to have witness this happen to another *cough* sport.

Pro wrestling.

 

[Pats Fan]

I think you very much underestimate the talent of the Patriots. We cannot compare the teams of old with the new for obvious reasons. My own personal opinion is that players are getting bigger, faster, and better. And I think that is why it is so hard to win the Super Bowl. Lots of talent out there. And did the "old" teams win because that talent across the board was not there??? No one will ever know, and you know what, it doesn't matter. What matters is this year, not even last year. This year.

And I think you also do not give Brady his due. I have been watching football for 40 years and to me he is one of the greatest talents in the game --even over 40 years. But then that is my opinion. He has never had a top notch WR. To me, the guy is phenomenal. Has he lost some of his edge from the early years -- not really sure. He has some talent at WR this year, so we will see. New upcoming QB's I like - Rivers.

As far as people switching loyalty with a Super Bowl win, well that has been going on for years. But those folks are in the minority. Even teams that lose every year still have their loyal fans. I was one, but for me there was only one team. Of the 30 years as a season ticket holder, only recently has our team done well. Most fans in the NFL are VERY loyal -- I like that. Hey, it's a great game, win or lose, it is a great game.

 

[BBQ101]

A: A legendary team which manhandled its opponents from game one through the Super Bowl for multiple years?

B: Or a team lucky enough to succeed via a tuck rule and a Hall of Fame kicker?

Are you sure you are not trivializing things just a bit with your answer B?

Not hardly.Leveling out the talent across the franchises has insured fan loyalty and growth. That's not questionable. For those who love football played at its best with the best rosters imaginable, the 'awe aspect' has been replaced with the yearly hope that if you're lucky enough to have good chemistry, health and luck, your team (insert your team's name here:_____________) can (maybe) win a championship.

Personally, I think good teams can stay the same enough to build good chemestry in todays NFL. Additionally, luck/injury are always going to play a role in this violent sport. Would we have won as many games if we had lost Aikman or Emmit during our dynasty? There are always going to be players that if lost to injury sink their teams hope. Football is certainly one of the greatest team sports, but it is also about individual play...Perhaps having less great players on a team has heightend the injury concern however.

Bias? John Wayne said it best.

Not hardly.

I find this statment slightly homourous comming from a guy with "Epitaph: He Loved The Cowboys Too Damn Much" above his avatar.

Personally, I like football now more than I ever have. However, I grew up an Oiler fan being from Houston. After they pretty much stomped my heart out year after year, and then pulled up roots and left, I was out of football for a while. I eventually moved to Dallas, married a woman that is a Cowboy Freak, and made the correct decision. I have been a fan since Gaily came on board. So, this could be the reason I lean towards more parity. As my wife says, I also could be part of the reason the franchise has blown chunk pretty much since I have started liking them. At least no one can accuse me of being a fair weather fan, since I stuck with the Oilers till the end, and have been a huge fan of the boys through this horrid stretch of seasons.

BBQ

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Personally, I hate it, my brother. Teams should survive or fail without "help" from the league. I miss dynasties.

it never fails

 

[Established1971]

Just curious of the sentiments of this board regarding NFL parity. Today's NFL has been successfully set up so that virtually any team has a legitimate shot of turning around their franchise through free agency. Building a team dynasty like we all so enjoyed under Landry is virtually impossible today (with the notable exception of what the Patriots have been able to do).
I miss the "old" NFL where players stuck with one team for their career - guys like Bob Lilly, Roger Staubach, Randy White come to mind. Can anyone here imagine any of these guys having worn a jersey of any other team?
Admittably, Cowboy fans were spoiled for years with the success of the Landry and Johnson era.
Perhaps if I were a lifelong Buc fan I would have different opinion. LOL. Seems as if the huge salaries and successes of the NFL has watered down the NFL in my always objective opinion. You best put together a winning franchise quickly as you will not be able to keep many of your starters on the roster for very long.
Thoughts?

what did the Patriots do that the 92-95 Boys didnt?
I feel parity has been around for a long time myself I dont think its anything new really. But in the 70's yeah there were basically 6 teams that won each division every year - Mia,Pitt,Oak,Dall,Minn,LA. If youre a fan of one of those its great otherwise it must suck. I miss those days, the playoff games seemed to mean so much more, great teams seemed to lose games to greater teams. I wish it was like that now but if it was and Dallas WASNT one of them I would probably hate it.

 

[Pats Fan]

B: Or a team lucky enough to succeed via a tuck rule and a Hall of Fame kicker?

So the reasons for 3 SB's is the tuck rule (by the way did you know that Brady was hit in the head during that play and a penalty should have been called), and a kicker.

Well OK if you think so. Never knew a kicker was the most important player on the field. Learn something every day. Not.

 

[DallasEast]

I think you very much underestimate the talent of the Patriots.

I don't agree.

We cannot compare the teams of old with the new for obvious reasons. My own personal opinion is that players are getting bigger, faster, and better.

That's an old argument used by others and seldom used by me. When I refer to the dynasties of the past, I speak of the sheer dominance which dynasties invoked over their peers during their eras. While they have achieved multiple Super Bowl success, I have seen little dominance during their run. I have seen a ref's interpretation of a tuck rule and a few clutch field goals though...

And I think that is why it is so hard to win the Super Bowl. Lots of talent out there. And did the "old" teams win because that talent across the board was not there???

See? THIS is what I'm talking about. As much as I hate to mention them, the Steelers were loaded with talent in the 70's (so were we, but the Hall of Fame thinks otherwise). You would be hard pressed to compare their roster during their era with many other teams. However, in today's NFL, most rosters compare favorably. As I mentioned before, chemistry, health and luck are huge factors in winners and losers in the 21st century NFL.

No one will ever know, and you know what, it doesn't matter. What matters is this year, not even last year. This year.

It does matter, but you are right in pointing out that for some, the only thing that matters is what your team does any given year. Words such as "dominance" and "dynasty" be damned.

And I think you also do not give Brady his due. I have been watching football for 40 years and to me he is one of the greatest talents in the game --even over 40 years. But then that is my opinion. He has never had a top notch WR. To me, the guy is phenomenal. Has he lost some of his edge from the early years -- not really sure. He has some talent at WR this year, so we will see. New upcoming QB's I like - Rivers.

He's a very, very good quarterback. That I'll give him. No more. No less.

As far as people switching loyalty with a Super Bowl win, well that has been going on for years. But those folks are in the minority.

True, fickleness isn't a new fad, but what is in the minority now does not always have to remain so in the future.

Even teams that lose every year still have their loyal fans. I was one, but for me there was only one team. Of the 30 years as a season ticket holder, only recently has our team done well. Most fans in the NFL are VERY loyal -- I like that. Hey, it's a great game, win or lose, it is a great game.

Always good to see, hear or read from a true fan.

It has always been a great game, but, as the saying goes, "...all good things". I see a danger in making the NFL 'too popular'. Some agree. Others don't. Only time will decide.

 

[burmafrd]

The Boys of 92-95 DESTROYED twice a team that was considered great itself- the Buffalo Bills- who will in the end have more HOF players then the Pats will. They barely lost to a 49r team in 1994 that was pretty great as well- and will also have more HOF players then the Pats will. Add up the number of Pro Bowl spots for the 92-95 team= will just about double what the Pats had.
I could go on for the Pats fan, but I don't want to drive him to suicide. (now if he was a skins fan....)

 

[DallasEast]

Are you sure you are not trivializing things just a bit with your answer B?

Nope. Not in the least.

Personally, I think good teams can stay the same enough to build good chemestry in todays NFL. Additionally, luck/injury are always going to play a role in this violent sport. Would we have won as many games if we had lost Aikman or Emmit during our dynasty? There are always going to be players that if lost to injury sink their teams hope. Football is certainly one of the greatest team sports, but it is also about individual play...Perhaps having less great players on a team has heightend the injury concern however.

I find this statment slightly homourous comming from a guy with "Epitaph: He Loved The Cowboys Too Damn Much" above his avatar.

Why? I mentioned examples of dynasties other than Dallas's. IMO, those I commented about were true examples that will not be seen again. Of course, I could be proven wrong. Then again, I haven't seen any examples to date to change my opinion.

Personally, I like football now more than I ever have.

For me, luckily, my love of the franchise will forever outweigh the changes within the sport itself. You won't ever see me running for the CFL!

j/k philo beddoe (not really)

However, I grew up an Oiler fan being from Houston. After they pretty much stomped my heart out year after year, and then pulled up roots and left, I was out of football for a while. I eventually moved to Dallas, married a woman that is a Cowboy Freak, and made the correct decision. I have been a fan since Gaily came on board. So, this could be the reason I lean towards more parity. As my wife says, I also could be part of the reason the franchise has blown chunk pretty much since I have started liking them. At least no one can accuse me of being a fair weather fan, since I stuck with the Oilers till the end, and have been a huge fan of the boys through this horrid stretch of seasons.

BBQ

There's a difference I've always shared with others. For me, there has always been one favorite team or (in individual sports such as golf) player.

In the NFL, it has always been the Cowboys, through thick and thin.
In MLB, ditto for Yankees.
In college sports, LSU.

In 1977, I became a devoted fan of the Philadelphia 76ers. The thought never occurred that would ever change. Yet, with Charles Barkley's departure, it did. Soundly.

From that point, I became a fan of Charles Barkley until his retirement. Never picked another NBA team. The interest of devoting my fanship to any NBA team has never resurfaced--not even for Philly.

It was at that point that I realized two things. First, I was never a true fan of the Sixers or the NBA by my own standards. Second, my standards for being a fan differs (sometimes) greatly with others and I should learn to respect that difference...



...to avoid lots of arguments.

 

[DallasEast]

B: Or a team lucky enough to succeed via a tuck rule and a Hall of Fame kicker?

So the reasons for 3 SB's is the tuck rule (by the way did you know that Brady was hit in the head during that play and a penalty should have been called), and a kicker.

Well OK if you think so. Never knew a kicker was the most important player on the field. Learn something every day. Not.

Well, I'm not going to underrate Vinateri's importance during the Patriots' three Super Bowl seasons. Heck, I've always said he was a GREAT kicker.

Just for the heck of it, let's look at who's mentioned first (within the first paragraph) in two of the Patriots' three Super Bowl recaps on SuperBowl.com.

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxxxvi

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxxxviii

Why did they mentioned him? He didn't play an important part of those Super Bowl wins, did he?

 

[ZeroClub]

I don't. I was as much a Cowboys fan 7 years ago when they were devoid of talent as I am now.

I don't doubt that.

And I am sure that I'll be a Cowboys fan until I draw my last breath. Most folks who post here will be the same.

But for those more casual fans who are younger, whose only experience with the NFL will be during this era of rapidly changing rosters, parity, and fantasy football, I think it becomes different.

It becomes more of a star driven league than a game or team driven league.

We've seen elements of this impact the MLB and the NBA already.

Time will tell.

--

By the way, I agree with you that disallowing any provision for free agency would be unethical.

I'd just like to see free agency implemented in such a way that the league provides incentives for teams to re-sign their own players.

As it is, sometimes the league actually rewards teams when their players sign elsewhere (in the form of compensatory draft picks).

 

[superpunk]

Well, I'm not going to underrate Vinateri's importance during the Patriots' three Super Bowl seasons. Heck, I've always said he was a GREAT kicker.

Just for the heck of it, let's look at who's mentioned first (within the first paragraph) in two of the Patriots' three Super Bowl recaps on SuperBowl.com.

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxxxvi

http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxxxviii

Why did they mentioned him? He didn't play an important part of those Super Bowl wins, did he?

I think they are different types of dynasties.

Yeah, they're not murdering people like the early 90s Cowboys, but there are alot of similarities in the consistent winner. I think the Pats are doing the best you can hope for in this age. With 4 less teams, who knows how much more talented teams could make themselves.

Expansion hurts more than free agency, IMO. As it stands now, we could see teams with tons of young talent now (read: Dallas) keep it around a long time, and start a REAL dynasty.

 

[Pats Fan]

We can agree to disagree. I would like to see a game between the Pats at their best and the Boys at their best. Would be a fun game to watch. I think you might find yourselves surprised at the outcome. I'm not sure of the final score, but I think it would be one heck of a game.

What people forget about the Pats is that they are the sum of their parts. Teams cannot afford to have all of the best players on their team with the cap. But when a team works together, is coached well, and there is plenty of talent to go around including Brady and Adam, well you saw the results. Plus they play as a team, as one. And there is for the most part talent at every position -- except for WR -- and the jury is still out on that one.

And as I said it really is not important what happened in the past except for memories. When Brady goes will the Pats continue to be in the forefront -- don't think so. But I enjoy the ride while I can.

And I still think the talent today is better. Bigger and faster. Heart is the question. Look at what happened in basketball. I don't even watch it anymore. Spoiled brats.

 

[Crown Royal]

I don't doubt that.

And I am sure that I'll be a Cowboys fan until I draw my last breath. Most folks who post here will be the same.

But for those more casual fans who are younger, whose only experience with the NFL will be during this era of rapidly changing rosters, parity, and fantasy football, I think it becomes different.

It becomes more of a star driven league than a game or team driven league.

We've seen elements of this impact the MLB and the NBA already.

Time will tell.

--

By the way, I agree with you that disallowing any provision for free agency would be unethical.

I'd just like to see free agency implemented in such a way that the league provides incentives for teams to re-sign their own players.

As it is, sometimes the league actually rewards teams when their players sign elsewhere (in the form of compensatory draft picks).

Thank you for the response - I was sad that nobody responded to the ethics of the system. In my mind, right now, the way the league is set up, it is more ethical to the players than any of the other sports.

Now to answer your post about dwindling fan support - I still don't see that happening. Right now, the league has shifted more to stability than it has in the last few years, as teams have figured out how to be cap responsible and keep their star players. Each team has a very good core of stars that have been with them since the beginning and remain there, so I think that the assertion that they are moving around more than they did is incorrect.

As far as being an individual star league, I definitely can't see that ever becoming like it is in the NBA and MLB, just because this is a different beast.

I may not have the foresight, but I just can't accept assertions tha the current system is going to weaken the league, when all signs and evidence points the exact opposite.

 

[DallasEast]

I think they are different types of dynasties.

Yeah, they're not murdering people like the early 90s Cowboys, but there are alot of similarities in the consistent winner. I think the Pats are doing the best you can hope for in this age. With 4 less teams, who knows how much more talented teams could make themselves.

Expansion hurts more than free agency, IMO. As it stands now, we could see teams with tons of young talent now (read: Dallas) keep it around a long time, and start a REAL dynasty.

I don't fully agree with everything you've said, but I do agree 110% in what you said in bold.

 

[DallasEast]

We can agree to disagree. I would like to see a game between the Pats at their best and the Boys at their best. Would be a fun game to watch. I think you might find yourselves surprised at the outcome. I'm not sure of the final score, but I think it would be one heck of a game.

Perhaps, but I don't think we would be seeing Vinateri pumping his fist after any of his field goal attempts during that game.

What people forget about the Pats is that they are the sum of their parts. Teams cannot afford to have all of the best players on their team with the cap. But when a team works together, is coached well, and there is plenty of talent to go around including Brady and Adam, well you saw the results. Plus they play as a team, as one. And there is for the most part talent at every position -- except for WR -- and the jury is still out on that one.

Yep, the Patriots are a very good team. Saaaaaay! How about a few peace items and let's call it a day?

http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2002/0211_large.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2004/0209_large.jpg
http://i.cnn.net/si/si_online/covers/images/2005/0214_large.jpg

Who cares if New England's a dynasty or not? Three Lombardi trophies in four years! Yea!

And as I said it really is not important what happened in the past except for memories.

Memories,
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were
​

When Brady goes will the Pats continue to be in the forefront -- don't think so. But I enjoy the ride while I can.

YEAH, BABY!!!​

And I still think the talent today is better. Bigger and faster. Heart is the question.

You forgot 'stronger'!.​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOLEEu8RLI​

Look at what happened in basketball. I don't even watch it anymore. Spoiled brats.

Well, I still catch a few games, especially around the playoffs, but I do agree with you that they're spoiled brats. I'll add that some are too young for good measure also.​

 

[burmafrd]

Pats fan- virtually every coach when asked laughs when the Pats of 2001-2004 are compared to the Boys of 92-95. As I pointed out, there was so much more talent on the boys its not even funny. And unlike the 70s or even 80s, they were just as big strong and fast as players are now. Pats have no one like emmitt or irvin or even harper or moose. They did not have a great O line that ate people up. No one like Novacek. They did not even have as good a D line as the boys have= though they did have better LBs. BUT the boys had a very fine secondary as well. Position for position the boys win probably 15 or more of the 22 positions. On that team already AIkman and Irvin are in the HOF. Emmitt will be. LA on the line and Haley on the D line and Deion in the secondary will all be in the HOF. 6 HOF players. ANd Johnston was the best full back of that time. Novacek one of the top TEs. Leon Lett was a pro bowl DL; Kevin Smith was a pro bowl CB. Eric WIlliams before his car accident was on the way to the HOF; he DESTROYED Reggie White. If not for their injuries, Williams and Smith could very well have gone to the HOF- or gotten close. As I pointed out, the number of total pro bowl invites for that team is about twice as many as the Pats of their best era got. And you still think the Pats would have had a chance in a game? You are truly deluded.

 

[DallasEast]

And you still think the Pats would have had a chance in a game? You are truly deluded.

YEAH, BABY!!!


_​

 

[GlitzCowboy]

I just don't like the fact that we haven't been able to take advantage of this partity-driven league so far. I mean come on, we're the Dallas Freakin' Cowboys, we should have pillaged this new era by now and made it our own! Basically, we're doing crap for holding up our end of the bargain as America's Team. That's what sucks about parity.