Who here likes NFL parity???

[The30YardSlant]

well im sorry if you guys dont like it. i understand why you guys like the dominant teams but i just dont agree with it.

to me its like cheering for the house in blackjack.

Again, it's the way it should be. The house is supposed to win. The fact that every now and then they don't provides the suspense

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because it's the way it's supposed to be

Is it fun to watch a cat catch and toy with a mouse, then eat it, knowing the mouse never had a chance? No, but it's the way the world is supposed to work.

And if you're a fan of said team, there is nothing more fun than watching a 66-3 beatdown IMO. As an A&M fan, watching a 45-0 pounding of Baylor or a 66-13 thrashing of SMU is very entertaining

Like i said its like cheering for the house in blackjack.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, it's the way it should be. The house is supposed to win. The fact that every now and then they don't provides the suspense

Do you realize how petty you sound? You only want to cheer for a sure thing and be happy when someone elses sure thing fails.

I know if Rice ever beat atm you wouldnt be happy for the 'suspense.'

 

[DallasEast]

I know if Rice ever beat atm you wouldnt be happy for the 'suspense.'

Rice can't beat a team of automatic teller machines? Damn, that's beyond pathetic.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Do you realize how petty you sound? You only want to cheer for a sure thing and be happy when someone elses sure thing fails.

I know if Rice ever beat atm you wouldnt be happy for the 'suspense.'

No, I wouldnt, but that's what makes the game great. Knowing that, no matter how unlikely it may be, any team can pull the upset any given day.

I've seen Texas lose to Rice and seen A&M lose to Louisiana-Lafeyette. I loved the former, hate the latter. But you know what? It's why we watch. We know that our team could fall victim to the vastly inferior at any moment.

Parity takes that away in the sense that now, there is no confidence level with players and fans. Going into a game knowing you COULD lose but probably won't is much different from not having a damn clue.

I miss the days of Cowboys football when I could sit back and enjoy a great game almost every Sunday. Parity stole that from me.

So yes, I DO miss cheering for a sure thing. A sure thing sure as Hell beats what we've had to watch the last 10 years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, I wouldnt, but that's what makes the game great. Knowing that, no matter how unlikely it may be, any team can pull the upset any given day.

I've seen Texas lose to Rice and seen A&M lose to Louisiana-Lafeyette. I loved the former, hate the latter. But you know what? It's why we watch. We know that our team could fall victim to the vastly inferior at any moment.

Parity takes that away in the sense that now, there is no confidence level with players and fans. Going into a game knowing you COULD lose but probably won't is much different from not having a damn clue.

I miss the days of Cowboys football when I could sit back and enjoy a great game almost every Sunday. Parity stole that from me.

So yes, I DO miss cheering for a sure thing. A sure thing sure as Hell beats what we've had to watch the last 10 years.

First of all lets get one thing clear: Youre not interested in suspense. If you were you would like parity and not knowing. The fact of the matter is that you are not interested in taking a chance but would rather cheer for something that you know will win and are less interested if you are presented with competition regularly.

Like i said, its petty.

 

[The30YardSlant]

First of all lets get one thing clear: Youre not interested in suspense. If you were you would like parity and not knowing. The fact of the matter is that you are not interested in taking a chance but would rather cheer for something that you know will win and are less interested if you are presented with competition regularly.

Like i said, its petty.

I like suspense in the highest level of competition, the NFL playoffs, which was still there long before parity, when good teams were good and great teams were great.

I don't like suspense when the Cowboys play the Lions or the Colts play the Texans. Sorry, there is no fun in watching a close game between the eventual SB champion and a worthless excuse for a pro franchise.

In Dallas' 4 year run from 1992-1995, how many teams did they lose to who were VASTLY inferior? Two maybe? The Rams in '92 and the Skins in '95 are the only ones that come to mind (Yeah, the Skins in '93, but we didnt have Emmitt and 3 or 4 defensive starters were out).

THOSE were the good days of football.

 

[Crown Royal]

I am not entertained by 'super' teams that can play without effort because of their talents. I am a fan of football, not talent. I respect talent, but the game itself is what matters to me.

One of my favorite forms of football is HS football, where it is pure game and almost no talent.

For me, before the current system, it was just like baseball - get the best players and go. I like that with the current system, coaching is that much more important.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hey crown why are you still tinky winky?

 

[ZeroClub]

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.

Yeah ... it depends on the comparison point. My (unstated) comparison point was pre-free agency. It sounds like you are picking another comparison point (maybe 6 or 10 years ago). We both may be correct.

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.

I can tell you that my impression is that the NFL is currently more of an individual driven league than it has been at any time that I can personally remember. And it is moving more in that direction. Red Grange was before my time. Clearly when he played, he was the star who drove professional football. But somewhere between Grange and Lombardi's Packers, things changed and professional football became more of a team driven league.

As one looks back through the history of sports, it appears clear that sports run in cycles. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, wrestling was once a popular sport, then turned into a joke. Boxing at one time enjoyed widespread popularity. MLB was the national past time. Not now. The NBA has seen interesting cycles too: bad days and hard times - then Larry, Magic and MJ - and now to whatever it is now.

IMO, history shows that it is essentially inevitable that the NFL will fall out of favor someday, for some set of reasons. It is just a matter of when and why. I believe that the instability of rosters (and increasingly complexity of rules) will play a role.

 

[Crown Royal]

Hey crown why are you still tinky winky?

Laziness.

BTW - just finished a book you would love.

Sophie's World

Tagline: A novel about the history of philosophy

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Laziness.

BTW - just finished a book you would love.

Sophie's World

Tagline: A novel about the history of philosophy

you should change it to one of the others or do you secretly love TW?

i actually saw that in borders today and thought about getting it. I got Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Nonbeliever and Newton's Principia instead. I just finished Russel's History of Western Philosophy and before that Lockes Two Treatsies so i passed but if you say its good ill definitely check it out.

 

[Crown Royal]

you should change it to one of the others or do you secretly love TW?

i actually saw that in borders today and thought about getting it. I got Donaldson's Chronicles of Thomas Covenant Nonbeliever and Newton's Principia instead. I just finished Russel's History of Western Philosophy and before that Lockes Two Treatsies so i passed but if you say its good ill definitely check it out.

It isn't very detailed - just a true crash course beginning with the pre-socratics & ending with Sartre.

It's written for the lay-person, someone who may not be intimitely familiar with philosophy and it's history. But it was good to step back and hear all that. I haven't read everything, so I learned from it.

(I will be reading Hegel soon because of it)

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It isn't very detailed - just a true crash course beginning with the pre-socratics & ending with Sartre.

It's written for the lay-person, someone who may not be intimitely familiar with philosophy and it's history. But it was good to step back and hear all that. I haven't read everything, so I learned from it.

(I will be reading Hegel soon because of it)

hegel was a punk. his whole philosophy is just a justification for germans to invade other countries using some protodarwinistic tripe. a real jerk and warmonger.

 

[BBQ101]

I like suspense in the highest level of competition, the NFL playoffs, which was still there long before parity, when good teams were good and great teams were great.

I don't like suspense when the Cowboys play the Lions or the Colts play the Texans. Sorry, there is no fun in watching a close game between the eventual SB champion and a worthless excuse for a pro franchise.

In Dallas' 4 year run from 1992-1995, how many teams did they lose to who were VASTLY inferior? Two maybe? The Rams in '92 and the Skins in '95 are the only ones that come to mind (Yeah, the Skins in '93, but we didnt have Emmitt and 3 or 4 defensive starters were out).

THOSE were the good days of football.

Wait, I'm confused here. If you are truly 21 as you said earlier in this thread, in 1992 you would have been what 6 years old? 93 you were seven. Do you actually remember all these games? Man, I hope my kid is into football like you must have been. He is 5 right now, and is asking questions like "so are the cowboys the blue team or the red team". I sure hope in two years he can tell me how dissapointed he is that the Cowboys lost to some inferior team. Or that he knew we would win because the opposing team's quarterback was hurt and didn't stand a chance to begin with

Of course he just hasn't taken a liking to sports yet...hes more into HO trains and hotweels...

BBQ

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Since our Cowboys did better without it.......I want to go back to early 90's-95 years.

 

[Juke99]

I think your mistaking longevity as a fan to being a diehard fan. People were still getting on the bandwagon back then its just that they didnt have to hop off because the team kept winning.

look no farther than the ninties when we had our last dynasty and all the teams of people lined up across the country cheering for our team. at least us guys that lasted through the campo years can say we were real fans. it doesnt capture the marginal fan it simply exposes them.

Personally i could care less if people switch teams like they do their underwear. that doesnt stop me from enjoying the typical NFL game now.

and whats this with fake contenders? just becasue street and smith cannot predict the outcome, the teams winning games are not for real? the games in this past playoff were simply amazing. Our game as well as Pats-Indy CHicago-Seachicken Eagles-Saints Pats-Chargers games were just some fun football to watch. Better than watching teams going through the motions on the way to the conference championship.

Fake contenders. By my definition...a team that makes it to the playoffs due to "parity" and then bombs out the next year.

 

[burmafrd]

the quality of todays game is much less. Pre parity, etc it was not uncommon to have all 5 starters on your O line play together for 7-8 years. Now you are lucky if you can do it for 3 or 4. A QB would have 7-10 years sometimes to work with the same WRS. Or at least 5-7. A Defense might stay with few changes for 5-7 years. that time playing together is literally priceless. That is why you will never get great teams like that again. One; no way to build them now with small drafts, FA and the CAP. And the cap and FA insure that even if somehow you got in 4 straight drafts an incredible haul that you would never be able to keep them together long enough to become great. The Cowboys of the 70s changed out from 70-78 about 12 starters in total.
QB, RB, TE, 2 O linemen - most of those changes in 70-72. On D there were big changes- about 6 players- in the same time frame. And from 79-83 there were very few changes. And that was actually a lot of movement-for that time. The Steelers from 74-80 only had about 5 starters change on their whole team. Their O line was unchanged, and most of their D was unchanged as well. There is no way that that would happen now. Even the Patriots- from 2001 to now- have more movement then the Boys 71-78. And they have been the most steady team as regards player movement in the NFL.

 

[baj1dallas]

I like it. Keep your core players around but you can't keep your whole team (ie backups) around forever. Somebody will give those guys a chance to $hine. No longer are teams other than Detroit and Arizona destined to be doormats for all time. I like football a lot more than baseball. I wouldn't mind though if re-signing your picks only cost like 90% against the cap or something.

T-New, Roy, Romo, Witten...these guys will all be Cowboys for life.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Wait, I'm confused here. If you are truly 21 as you said earlier in this thread, in 1992 you would have been what 6 years old? 93 you were seven. Do you actually remember all these games? Man, I hope my kid is into football like you must have been. He is 5 right now, and is asking questions like "so are the cowboys the blue team or the red team". I sure hope in two years he can tell me how dissapointed he is that the Cowboys lost to some inferior team. Or that he knew we would win because the opposing team's quarterback was hurt and didn't stand a chance to begin with

Of course he just hasn't taken a liking to sports yet...hes more into HO trains and hotweels...

BBQ

My first year of watchign the Cowboys was 1991, when I was 6. I remember very vividly their championship runs in '92, '93, and '95