The myth of NFL parity

[BossierWhoDat]

7 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Fine, what does parity look like to you?

I would say parity is the attempt to make the 'playing field' as even as possible. Salary cap, compensatory picks, etc...they are all put in place to help achieve parity.

I do believe the NFL could do things to achieve a better and maximum parity possible, but there will likely never be mathematical parity in which each team has nearly identical win percentage. Let's say the big, bad NFL is truly trying to achieve the most parity possible. It can't be perfect because when a team finds a franchise QB that lights everyone up (Tom Brady), they're going to win more, there's not much the NFL can do about that. On the opposite end, some teams can't find a franchise QB and so they lose much more often.

[bzane]

Gosh, I for one believe in the so-called "myth" of NFL Parody!

[Soko]

1 minute ago, youngosu said:

Lol, so comparing the NFL to MLB is a strawman? 

No. This is a strawman:

7 minutes ago, youngosu said:

How bout you actually make an argument? 

When someone calls someone close minded instead of attempting to make an actual argument it certainly appears they have no argument to make. Yet you still think it has parity I assume without any evidence to support said belief? And I am the close minded one.

 

[youngosu]

21 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Every AFC team has a playoff appearance, 1 AL team has 0 playoff appearances.   How does that mean the AL has more parity than the AFC????

All NFC teams with playoff appearances, 1 AL team having 0 playoff appearances.  How does that mean the AL has more parity than the NFC????

So you pick the outlier to prove your point?

But since you asked. 

MLB takes less playoff teams. If MLB took 6 playoff teams every year the Mariners would have had at least 4 playoff appearances since 2002 (2002, 2003, 2014, and 2016 off the top of my head). 

[youngosu]

27 minutes ago, BossierWhoDat said:

I would say parity is the attempt to make the 'playing field' as even as possible. Salary cap, compensatory picks, etc...they are all put in place to help achieve parity.

I do believe the NFL could do things to achieve a better and maximum parity possible, but there will likely never be mathematical parity in which each team has nearly identical win percentage. Let's say the big, bad NFL is truly trying to achieve the most parity possible. It can't be perfect because when a team finds a franchise QB that lights everyone up (Tom Brady), they're going to win more, there's not much the NFL can do about that. On the opposite end, some teams can't find a franchise QB and so they lose much more often.

Fair enough. I don't consider that the definition most use because by that definition the NBA has parity but I don't know many sports fans that would make such a claim. 

[BossierWhoDat]

Fair enough. I do have an idea though.

To create more parity: give teams 1 point for every 50 yards they have rushing. It would take some of the importance away from the QB position and give teams incentive to rush more. Also, those teams who can't find a franchise QB can put all they have into a beefy O-Line and RBs.

* I haven't thought through the consequences, it's just an idea *

[Bolts223]

The difference between the MLB and NFL is equality of opportunity.

It's ridiculous for anyone to think it's fair that franchises like the Yankees and Dodgers can go out and spend twice as much as smaller franchises like the Padres and Brewers. Look at the Royals as the best example of the limitations of a small market team: They go two two WS in a row, win one of them and have to gut the team because of financial constraints. That's something the large market teams NEVER have to deal with.

Football has equality of opportunity, which is really the only "Parity" I care about. 

Also: The NFC has a ton of parity. The AFC is the result of a few HOF QB's (One of who is also partnered with the GOAT head coach) dominating it for the last two decades or so.

 

 

[youngosu]

20 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

The difference between the MLB and NFL is equality of opportunity.

It's ridiculous for anyone to think it's fair that franchises like the Yankees and Dodgers can go out and spend twice as much as smaller franchises like the Padres and Brewers. Look at the Royals as the best example of the limitations of a small market team: They go two two WS in a row, win one of them and have to gut the team because of financial constraints. That's something the large market teams NEVER have to deal with.

Football has equality of opportunity, which is really the only "Parity" I care about. 

Also: The NFC has a ton of parity. The AFC is the result of a few HOF QB's (One of who is also partnered with the GOAT head coach) dominating it for the last two decades or so.

 

 

Okay but its still not equal in the NFL. The Cowboys dwarf the Bills when it comes to revenue just like the Yankees dwarf the Royals. The Royals have plenty of revenue to spend 150 million+ on players and keep that roster if they wanted too. The opportunity is there, they chose a different path. And this is true for most small market MLB teams. Most can easily run payrolls above 150 million but don't by choose. Which actually brings up the myth of the small market MLB team. Those aren't nearly the thing they are claimed either. 

The NFL forces teams to do this, that isn't opportunity that is coercion. 

As for the NFC, I posted their results since 2002 also. The Packers and Seahawks have been nearly as dominate as the Patriots and Colts. 

[Bolts223]

Just now, youngosu said:

Okay but its still not equal in the NFL. The Cowboys dwarf the Bills when it comes to revenue just like the Yankees dwarf the Royals. The Royals have plenty of revenue to spend 150 million+ on players and keep that roster if they wanted too. The opportunity is there, they chose a different path. And this is true for most small market MLB teams. Most can easily run payrolls above 150 million but don't by choose. Which actually brings up the myth of the small market MLB team. Those aren't nearly the thing they are claimed either. 

The NFL forces teams to do this, that isn't opportunity that is coercion. 

As for the NFC, I posted their results since 2002 also. The Packers and Seahawks have been nearly as dominate as the Patriots and Colts. 

Umm no. Not even close, lol. Well maybe the Colts, but not the Pats.

The revenue inequality if pretty irrelevant because of the salary cap. That's the point.

[lancerman]

5 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Okay but its still not equal in the NFL. The Cowboys dwarf the Bills when it comes to revenue just like the Yankees dwarf the Royals. The Royals have plenty of revenue to spend 150 million+ on players and keep that roster if they wanted too. The opportunity is there, they chose a different path. And this is true for most small market MLB teams. Most can easily run payrolls above 150 million but don't by choose. Which actually brings up the myth of the small market MLB team. Those aren't nearly the thing they are claimed either. 

The NFL forces teams to do this, that isn't opportunity that is coercion. 

As for the NFC, I posted their results since 2002 also. The Packers and Seahawks have been nearly as dominate as the Patriots and Colts. 

The difference is the Cowboys don’t have opportunity to outspend the Bills and get all and any elite free agency talent while the Bills entire prospect of winning relies on an efficient and consistent draft process where they lose all their good players after 5 years. 

Parity doesnt account for the differences in team management and coaching once you equalize the playing field. 

[youngosu]

17 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

Umm no. Not even close, lol. Well maybe the Colts, but not the Pats.

The revenue inequality if pretty irrelevant because of the salary cap. That's the point.

In playoff appearances they have and that is what I was talking about. 

Is revenue inequality irrelevant because of the cap? That assumes cash doesn't help a team with bonuses and guaranteed money (which must be funded as soon as the deal is signed).

MLB has a luxury tax that acts as a cap. Even the Yankees try to avoid doing over that number. 

So apparently the argument is now that the NFL provides parity of opportunity. So if that is the new definition does the NBA have parity? I've never heard anyone claim the NBA has parity but its got a cap and hell even has a max salary on individual players.

[youngosu]

25 minutes ago, lancerman said:

The difference is the Cowboys don’t have opportunity to outspend the Bills and get all and any elite free agency talent while the Bills entire prospect of winning relies on an efficient and consistent draft process where they lose all their good players after 5 years. 

Parity doesnt account for the differences in team management and coaching once you equalize the playing field. 

The Yankees choose to outspend the other teams. If its about equality of opportunity nothing about MLB is taking that opportunity from the Royals. They absolutely have the opportunity to spend as much as they want (and plenty of revenue to spend far more than they choose too without losing money). The choose not too. 

 

[lancerman]

3 minutes ago, youngosu said:

The Yankees choose to outspend the other teams. If its about equality of opportunity nothing about MLB is taking that opportunity from the Royals. They absolutely have the opportunity to spend as much as they want (and plenty of revenue to spend far more than they choose too without losing money). The choose not too. 

 

You can’t buy things you can’t afford. No I get why everyone mocked you this whole thread. You shouldn’t try to have a discussion about something that you are so bullish on 

[youngosu]

40 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You can’t buy things you can’t afford. No I get why everyone mocked you this whole thread. You shouldn’t try to have a discussion about something that you are so bullish on 

Ah, but they can afford it if they choose to a) spend a larger percentage of their revenue on players or b) lose money in the short term to be more competitive (they will get that money back when they sell the team). 

MLB owners are billionaires, sports teams are a luxury item and no one forced anyone to buy the Royals. If you bought them and don't want to spend enough to compete that is your choose but to claim the opportunity doesn't exist is false. 

And again, many MLB teams have plenty of revenue to spend far more than they spend right now without losing money. 

And I am mocked because my opinion is in the majority and I don't just accept a changing definition of parity as an explanation on why I am wrong. 

 

Sports parity has always meant that the talent is roughly equal. That has been the accepted definition for as long as I can remember and the only way to determine if talent is roughly equal is to compare how teams do year to year. And MLB despite payroll disparities has more parity than the NFL. The NFL is 3rd in parity (behind MLB and the NHL) by just about any measure that doesn't re-define parity. Equality of opportunity gives the illusion of parity, its not the reality. 

 

But for the sake of argument, if parity simply means equality of opportunity (through rules that force teams to spend a certain amount and cap other teams) than does the NBA have parity?

[youngosu]

All that said, don't like my explanation than maybe you will listen to researchers from Harvard. 

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/

 

The NFL basically has the same level of parity as MLB despite having nearly polar opposite revenue/spending rules. 

So I guess its not really the myth of parity in the NFL but more the myth that the NFL has the most parity. Its tied for 2nd at best.