Jump to content

Ideas for the NFL to increase parity


paul-mac

Recommended Posts

Increase parity? The NFL has parity falling out of its 4th point of contact.

There is nothing to fix here. The Pats arent indicative of some broken system. They're an exception. A rare occurrence. And it's actually great for football and great for the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, howru8888 said:

Funny you want to limit good teams and their allowed salary cap. Patriots are the best team in football and have 20 million in cap space

 

Exactly. Maybe the problem isnt the rules. Maybe the problem is the players.

In New England, players are willing to take less than top dollar if it means they will be part of a winning team that will be competitive in January. Maybe some of these high paid players on consistently average teams could take note.

Of course, it's easy to take a pay cut for a team like the Pats. Coached by Bill, steered by Tom, you KNOW you will be going to a team of consummate professionals (from the front office to the field)  with one goal; to win the SB. Not win 9 games. Not make the playoffs. Not get good stats so you can get a better contract next year. But to win it all. 

If you are the Browns, you are going to have a very tough time selling the idea that you should take less so the team can afford to bring in more talent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paul-mac said:

The NFL has a parity problem. It’s ridiculous that in a league designed for parity the Patriots can be making the conference championship 7 years in a row, so we need some rule changes to increase parity. I have a few ideas.

 

1. Reallocate the salary cap: The players and owners negotiate that X% of League revenue goes into player salaries in the CBA. This number is currently divided by 32 to give the salary cap. Maybe poorer performing teams should be given more money and the Patriots less.

 

2. Draft considerations: At the moment we have a full first round of draft picks before the worst team picks again. Maybe we should have the top 20 picks (non playoff teams) and then the top 20 teams pick AGAIN (40 picks today) and then the non playoff teams get two picks each (so we’ve had 64 picks) and then carry on as normal 

Both are terrible ideas that'll actually move away from parity.  

 

1.  This doesn't necessarily help the worst teams as some of them like the Browns are well under their cap.  It helps the teams who are irresponsible with money, but ultimately hurts them too.  You create a weird scenarios where an up and coming team who use up this bonus cap to be competitive and has a very real chance as making the playoff has a tough choice .  They could either go for it, but likely not going to win the SB or they tank because now they are a playoff team, they lose that bonus cap next year which they needed to rely on just to be competitive.

2.  Again same situation.  You'll see bubble teams tanking because then they get an additional pick.

 

Parity is about making a level playing field, not about giving crutches to the bad teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AZ_Eaglesfan said:

You want to increase parity in the league that has the most parity in american sports?

Good luck.

yea, every other league in the US is pretty much decided preseason. You'll get like one team every two years come up a=out of nowhere
then you have the nba which has like zero parity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, paul-mac said:

 

 

If that was true that would be a good thing. But unfortunately it’s not. The Patriots are an arm and a leg better than everyone else 

And yet, have a good shot at going 3-4 in championship games over the past 7 years.

it would be one thing if the Pats were getting to and winning Super Bowls every year, but the majority of years they are not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AZ_Eaglesfan said:

You want to increase parity in the league that has the most parity in american sports?

Good luck.

MLB has more. 21/30 teams have made the World Series in the last 22 years. Only 19/32 in the NFL have made the Super Bowl in that same timespan. In 3 straight years the MLB has had two new teams in the World Series, and championship droughts of 55 (never) years, 108 years, and 30 years have been broken. As the MLB has been in recent memory, it has the most parity. Mostly because while it's harder to make the playoffs, any team that makes it can win it all. ANY team. Nature of the sport and randomness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically you want competition have less teams so the talent pool has less places to go. Get rid of one team in each division. In recent memory, show the door to the Bears, Cardinals, Bucaneers, Redskins, Jets, Browns, Chargers, and this is a tough one but Texans.  There now you lost 8 teams and you 24 teams left. 

Players like Fitzgerald, Jones, Baker, Peterson, McCoy, Kerrigan, Williams, Scherff, Cousins, Davis, Garrett, Thomas, Collins, Rivers, Allen, Bosa, Hayward, Ingram, Watson, Watt, Clowney, and Hopkins need to go on one of the remaining 24 teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, paul-mac said:

 

 

If that was true that would be a good thing. But unfortunately it’s not. The Patriots are an arm and a leg better than everyone else 

I don't believe that they are an arm and leg "better" than everyone else, I think they are an arm and leg "more consistent".

 

They just don't seem to have the same lows as other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spartica4Real said:

MLB has more. 21/30 teams have made the World Series in the last 22 years. Only 19/32 in the NFL have made the Super Bowl in that same timespan. In 3 straight years the MLB has had two new teams in the World Series, and championship droughts of 55 (never) years, 108 years, and 30 years have been broken. As the MLB has been in recent memory, it has the most parity. Mostly because while it's harder to make the playoffs, any team that makes it can win it all. ANY team. Nature of the sport and randomness. 

That is literally just the nature of baseball thought. A player that was considered one of the best for a season can be one of the worst players on a roster the following season. It has nothing to do with the how the league is structured or the rules, it is just the nature of the sport. That said, there are still teams that are regularly in the playoffs/winning championships in the MLB, it just hasn't been that way recently. So yes, the MLB has more parity then the NFL, but I don't think including it in a conversation about parity in this case is helpful. 

The Patriots are one of the all time great dynasties in NFL history. Outside of the Pats there is an incredible amount of parity in the NFL. 5 of the 6 NFC teams in the playoffs weren't in the playoffs a season ago. The Titans, Bills, and Jags hadn't even been to the playoffs in 10+ years, and two of them won a playoff game this year. There is parity everywhere in this league outside of one team that happens to have the greatest coach/QB combo in history. Pretty silly to say the NFL needs MORE parity then it has now, cause we currently have an all time great dynasty in the league right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...