Who here likes NFL parity???

[PullMyFinger]

I hate it, along with the salary cap. I dont believe in punishing teams for being good or drafting good. Why should Dallas, San Fran, Pittsburg, etc, etc, be punished for being good all those years?

Parity makes the NFL a watered down league.

 

[Crown Royal]

I hate it, along with the salary cap. I dont believe in punishing teams for being good or drafting good. Why should Dallas, San Fran, Pittsburg, etc, etc, be punished for being good all those years?

Parity makes the NFL a watered down league.

I don't believe in punishing players for being drafted by a poor team.

I don't view the salary cap/free agency as punishing teams. They have the option to keep the players they want. If they draft well, they should be able to continue that trend.

 

[DallasEast]

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.

In both their hearts and in the fans' hearts, that's a certainty; but the odds of all four players playing their entire careers in Big D isn't. The current system promotes player movement within the timeframe of players' careers.

Unless their careers are shortened for whatever reason, the odds favor any of the players mentioned to leave and join another team. The reasons for doing so will vary from seeking more money than Dallas will pay out--to being traded for another player of equal value--to reading the writing on the wall and moving on to greener pastures when a younger player is drafted and cuts into playing time. Etc., etc.

All these things have greatly increased under the current system. There isn't any reason for it to end in the foreseeable future.

 

[DallasEast]

I hate it, along with the salary cap. I dont believe in punishing teams for being good or drafting good. Why should Dallas, San Fran, Pittsburg, etc, etc, be punished for being good all those years?

Parity makes the NFL a watered down league.

Answer: more money for the historically bad teams.

 

[Kilyin]

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

The fact that you can remember things vividly from when you were 6 or 7 is amazing. It's also quite unbelievable that you had enough understanding of the game at that age to digest everything that transpired over the course of the season/postseason and actually be able to cognitively recall it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Answer: more money for the historically bad teams.

which is exactly the point. if the playing field is level then what is the problem?

 

[PullMyFinger]

Why should Dallas suffer because say Detroit isn't selling out games. Its not Dallas' fault. If Detroit drafted good and won more games they would be selling out. The cap destroyed the dynasties (and no I dont consider NE a dynasty). If it wasn't for the stupid cap Dallas would have prob won about 3-4 more SB's in the 90's.

They have the option to keep the players they want. If they draft well, they should be able to continue that trend.

No they dont have the option because of the cap. Why should the Cowboys share their revenue with the other 31 teams? Its their money. If you were forced to split your paycheck among 31 other people you wouldn't like it either.

Cap = Watered down NFL.

 

[DallasEast]

which is exactly the point. if the playing field is level then what is the problem?

Good question. Regardless of the type of spectator sport, no one intentionally wishes to watch or cheer for a losing team or athlete. I believe that everyone wants to see competitive contests. That's what the NFL has evolved into, but (with respect) only certain fans also desire the opportunity to see examples of the best representations that the sport could provide. The NFL has gotten away from that concept.

Before the NFL began to truly regulate how the most talented players were distributed throughout the league in the mid-90's, successful franchises followed the principle of 'survival of the fittest' The teams which dedicated all of their resources (money, coaching, scouting, etc.) towards hoarding as many of the top players capitalized upon that principle. The results were excellent or even legendary teams for some and mediocre teams for those who didn't.

Is that fair? No, it isn't, but it leads to an even bigger question. Should it be?

By its own definition, sports is a, 'physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively' (http://www.answers.com/sport&r=67#Dictionary). In regards to how talented players are acquired and retained, the NFL has governed pro football by enforcing very strict rules--ensuring that the talent pool has been diluted leaguewide.

Presto! Competitve football played by many good and sometimes very good teams on a yearly basis. Mission accomplished, but at what cost?

Answer: excellent or even legendary teams have been whittled down over the past decade to few and none. With the rules firmly entrenched, the likelihood of seeing examples of the aforementioned teams are slim to none.

The annual procession of crowing a league champion in pro football has changed from a smaller group of teams with rosters loaded with the best players of their particular era showcasing their talents resulting in more intensely executed played games...

...to a larger group of teams exhibiting diminished levels of play during games because top-notch players are spread out on more rosters. By comparison witn previous eras, present day pro football lags behind. The cost of making more fans happy has been the exorcism of the NFL's legacy of producing unforgettable teams. I miss that, but what's a guy to do?

Amateur football has been an equalizing spectator alternative. Teams are not bound to a 'level playing field', as is necessary for the NFL. Any school with the necessary drive to fund its program, entice good coaches and motivate its student athletes to excel are benefitted with competitive seasons and generate opportunities to win championships. Those that don't fail.

Is that fair? Nope, and I've seen both success and failure at that level from both perspectives. Fairness can be a copout for wanting to be the best.

A mediocre high school's football program can strive for success and win. Average football can change to that of excellent or even legendary football. High school programs can seek to become the next Southlake Carroll. Or the next Lakeland. Or the next Independence. Or the next South Panola. Or the next De La Salle. Etc., etc.

Or a mediocre high school program can sit around, do nothing, and hope that someone else will change things to 'make it fair'. Just as the NFL has done. In the NFL, teams can now strive to become the next St. Louis Rams of '99.

Gone and forgotten. Or the next Baltimore Ravens of 2000.

Ditto. Or the next Tampa Bay Buccaneers of 2002. Etc., etc.

Only the New England Patriots have broken up the NFL's version of deja vu., albeit in a less than dominating fashion (that one's not gonna be taken well by Patriot fans).

That's what defines fairness in the NFL's 21st century. The luckiest, healtiest and usually best well-prepared team can make a run for the title. Boorah!



The stuff of football legend be damned.

 

[burmafrd]

Pretty good take east.

 

[The30YardSlant]

The fact that you can remember things vividly from when you were 6 or 7 is amazing. It's also quite unbelievable that you had enough understanding of the game at that age to digest everything that transpired over the course of the season/postseason and actually be able to cognitively recall it.

All I knew was Dallas back then. I couldnt have told you who Steve Young or Jerry Rice or Reggie White or Dan Marino were.

But I remember the Cowboys games from back then like they were yesterday

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Why should Dallas suffer because say Detroit isn't selling out games. Its not Dallas' fault. If Detroit drafted good and won more games they would be selling out. The cap destroyed the dynasties (and no I dont consider NE a dynasty). If it wasn't for the stupid cap Dallas would have prob won about 3-4 more SB's in the 90's.



No they dont have the option because of the cap. Why should the Cowboys share their revenue with the other 31 teams? Its their money. If you were forced to split your paycheck among 31 other people you wouldn't like it either.

Cap = Watered down NFL.

The alternative is the MLB path, according to your logic, which I don't want to take. Sure, Dallas would have an advantage and would perenially be good but player turnover would be constant, salaries would skyrocket, relatively small market teams would be unable to compete.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Good question. Regardless of the type of spectator sport, no one intentionally wishes to watch or cheer for a losing team or athlete. I believe that everyone wants to see competitive contests. That's what the NFL has evolved into, but (with respect) only certain fans also desire the opportunity to see examples of the best representations that the sport could provide. The NFL has gotten away from that concept.

Before the NFL began to truly regulate how the most talented players were distributed throughout the league in the mid-90's, successful franchises followed the principle of 'survival of the fittest' The teams which dedicated all of their resources (money, coaching, scouting, etc.) towards hoarding as many of the top players capitalized upon that principle. The results were excellent or even legendary teams for some and mediocre teams for those who didn't.

Is that fair? No, it isn't, but it leads to an even bigger question. Should it be?

By its own definition, sports is a, 'physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively' (http://www.answers.com/sport&r=67#Dictionary). In regards to how talented players are acquired and retained, the NFL has governed pro football by enforcing very strict rules--ensuring that the talent pool has been diluted leaguewide.

Presto! Competitve football played by many good and sometimes very good teams on a yearly basis. Mission accomplished, but at what cost?

Answer: excellent or even legendary teams have been whittled down over the past decade to few and none. With the rules firmly entrenched, the likelihood of seeing examples of the aforementioned teams are slim to none.

The annual procession of crowing a league champion in pro football has changed from a smaller group of teams with rosters loaded with the best players of their particular era showcasing their talents resulting in more intensely executed played games...

...to a larger group of teams exhibiting diminished levels of play during games because top-notch players are spread out on more rosters. By comparison witn previous eras, present day pro football lags behind. The cost of making more fans happy has been the exorcism of the NFL's legacy of producing unforgettable teams. I miss that, but what's a guy to do?

Amateur football has been an equalizing spectator alternative. Teams are not bound to a 'level playing field', as is necessary for the NFL. Any school with the necessary drive to fund its program, entice good coaches and motivate its student athletes to excel are benefitted with competitive seasons and generate opportunities to win championships. Those that don't fail.

Is that fair? Nope, and I've seen both success and failure at that level from both perspectives. Fairness can be a copout for wanting to be the best.

A mediocre high school's football program can strive for success and win. Average football can change to that of excellent or even legendary football. High school programs can seek to become the next Southlake Carroll. Or the next Lakeland. Or the next Independence. Or the next South Panola. Or the next De La Salle. Etc., etc.

Or a mediocre high school program can sit around, do nothing, and hope that someone else will change things to 'make it fair'. Just as the NFL has done. In the NFL, teams can now strive to become the next St. Louis Rams of '99.

Gone and forgotten. Or the next Baltimore Ravens of 2000.

Ditto. Or the next Tampa Bay Buccaneers of 2002. Etc., etc.

Only the New England Patriots have broken up the NFL's version of deja vu., albeit in a less than dominating fashion (that one's not gonna be taken well by Patriot fans).

That's what defines fairness in the NFL's 21st century. The luckiest, healtiest and usually best well-prepared team can make a run for the title. Boorah!



The stuff of football legend be damned.

You forgot to mention the advent of free agency as a factor in this. We can't get back to the good ole days because the good ole days are illegal. The NFL created free agency because it had to come up with some version of free agency or it would have been forced on them by the courts or Congress. And, fortunately, the system they chose was a nice compromise, which allowed them to stop well short of the anarchic free for all that is MLB free agency.

 

[DallasEast]

You forgot to mention the advent of free agency as a factor in this. We can't get back to the good ole days because the good ole days are illegal. The NFL created free agency because it had to come up with some version of free agency or it would have been forced on them by the courts or Congress. And, fortunately, the system they chose was a nice compromise, which allowed them to stop well short of the anarchic free for all that is MLB free agency.

When I stated, "The cost of making more fans happy has been the exorcism of the NFL's legacy of producing unforgettable teams. I miss that, but what's a guy to do? "--I was saying that what's done is done for the NFL. However, the compromise, as you put it, doesn't change things whatsoever.

 

[lspain1]

The alternative is the MLB path, according to your logic, which I don't want to take. Sure, Dallas would have an advantage and would perenially be good but player turnover would be constant, salaries would skyrocket, relatively small market teams would be unable to compete.

Well spoken. Football is a more competitive product today. By definition, IMHO, a more competitive product is a better product. Tough decisions on players bring the "whole organization" component to the fore. Teams must be able to spot and develop talent in both players and coaches. That means the front office must also be effective to produce a consistently winning product. We have seen when the result when the FO does not perform.

However, my above reasoning illustrates why Dallas as a "perennial good team" if the cap didn't exist is false. It also states why Philadelphia has outperformed Dallas for a number of years. To believe Dallas would be doing better today (without a cap) fails to recognize the degradation the organization suffered though the late 90's. I'm not sure we are all the back yet as we go through yet another wholesale coaching change.

We'll see.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

When I stated, "The cost of making more fans happy has been the exorcism of the NFL's legacy of producing unforgettable teams. I miss that, but what's a guy to do? "--I was saying that what's done is done for the NFL. However, the compromise, as you put it, doesn't change things whatsoever.

Fair enough.

 

[fanfromvirginia]

Well spoken. Football is a more competitive product today. By definition, IMHO, a more competitive product is a better product. Tough decisions on players bring the "whole organization" component to the fore. Teams must be able to spot and develop talent in both players and coaches. That means the front office must also be effective to produce a consistently winning product. We have seen when the result when the FO does not perform.

However, my above reasoning illustrates why Dallas as a "perennial good team" if the cap didn't exist is false. It also states why Philadelphia has outperformed Dallas for a number of years. To believe Dallas would be doing better today (without a cap) fails to recognize the degradation the organization suffered though the late 90's. I'm not sure we are all the back yet as we go through yet another wholesale coaching change.

We'll see.

If there were no salary cap and relatively complete player freedom, a la baseball, the Cowboys could buy themselves out of bad coaching/personnel decisions, as the Red Sox and Yankees regularly do. Complete overhaul is never more than a really big bag of money and one season away if you're a big market team.

 

[Vtwin]

I'll take a seat on the 'parity sucks' bus, thank you.Most of the reasons why I think it sucks have already been stated in this thread.A couple that have not:Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl!. TRENT DILFER! That shouldn't happen.Officiating plays way to big a roll in any given teams successes and failures. In the good old days a real contender could overcome some bad officiating, at least in the regular season. With the effort to create parity, more games can be decided as a result of a bad call or two. With so many teams fighting for the playoff spots one bad call can end a teams playoff hopes.For the record, I am 43 and have been watching football and been a Cowboys fan for longer then I can remember. Just as much as I remember the championships I remember the one victory against the Skins in the 1-15 year. It's to bad we'll never see that kind of real upset again.Did I mention that TRENT DILFER won a Super Bowl?LOL

 

[DallasEast]

Just as much as I remember the championships I remember the one victory against the Skins in the 1-15 year. It's to bad we'll never see that kind of real upset again.

Great point. It's been sometime since I was last shocked by an "underdog's" win--in the regular or post seasons.

 

[PullMyFinger]

If there were no salary cap and relatively complete player freedom, a la baseball, the Cowboys could buy themselves out of bad coaching/personnel decisions, as the Red Sox and Yankees regularly do. Complete overhaul is never more than a really big bag of money and one season away if you're a big market team.

And whats wrong with that? Thats how it should be. If your a big market team, you shouldnt have to suffer by sharing your revenue or loosing your good players.

If not for the cap Jerry could buy who he wanted. Sheesh could you imagine Dallas with Harrison, LT, Lewis, Bailey, etc, etc. I miss the Cowboys of the 90's. Our backups could start for most teams, so I ask again, whats wrong with that?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the game is more competetive now across the board than it has ever been. you guys want to be shocked because some miracle david and goliath story but the fact of the matter is 99% of the time its 35-3 and the underdog loses.

i guess you guys dont mind sitting through 14 bad games and 2 good ones each and every week and the early playoff games being blowouts more than half the time but personally i like the way it is.