Parity Is Dead

[darklight1216]

[img]http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Images/RIPtombstone.jpg[/img]
[size="1"][color=red] Beware![/color] [i]Disclaimer: if you despise statistics, leave now.[/i][/size]

Is parity in the NFL dead?

Signs of death:

[b]1. Blowouts[/b]

The lack of competitiveness was more no more apparent than in week 7. Six of the 13 games were decided by 28 points or more. Pro football had produced six four-touchdown blowouts just once before in its history: back in Week 14 of the 1970 season, the very first year of the AFL-NFL merger. In fact, the average margin of victory was 20.3 points last week, which was nearly the highest margin of victory since the NFL merger, second only to that week in 1970 (23.5ppg).

[b]2. Last Second Thrills and Chills are Hard to Find[/b]

The NFL has long thrived on the close games that come down to last minute drives to determine the victor. These dramatic finishes have been slowly disappearing.


"Here in 2009, the vast majority of games (84 of 103 games or 81.6 percent) have been decided by more than a field goal.That’s the most in nearly a quarter century (since 1985) and the third most since the AFL-NFL merger. The trend began last year when 206 of 254 games (80.5 percent) were decided by more than a field goal – also among the most since the merger.


Double-digit blowouts, meanwhile, have become the rule here in 2009, not the exception: 56 of 103 games (54.4%) have been decided by 10 points or more – the most in 17 years and also among the most since the merger."

Fortunately, we Ravens fans are treated to close games a regular basis.

[b]3. The Horrifying Divide in the Standings.[/b]

As most of us probably know by know, for the first time in NFL history, there are three undefeated teams heading into week 8. The league also has three winless teams heading into the middle of the season in Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and one of the surprise teams of the year: Tennessee.

This follows the historic seasons of 2007 and 2008 in which the league boasted its first 16-0 and 0-16 teams.

Given the utter dominance that the upper tier teams have shown, and the deplorable conditions of the NFL's bottom feeders, it is not outside of the realm of possibility for this season to end with both a 16-0 team and a 0-16 one.

[b]4. The Gruesome Disparity on the Scoreboard[/b]

The undefeated Saints are averaging 39.7 points per game. This puts them on pace to surpass the recent record set by the New England Patriots (36.8 ppg) and even over take the single season scoring record of the 1950 Rams (38.8 ppg).

This shouldn't come as a surprise. The league has done eveything within its power to emasculate defenses and give offenses the upper hand. The result is higher scoring games.

However, not everyone has been able to take advantage of this opportunity. While the Saints and Colts are able to score at will, the lowly Browns have scored just six touchdowns this year, and only four of those were on offense. In fact, the Cleveland Browns have scored just four offensive touchdowns since Thanksgiving of 2008. The Rams are also having offensive troubles and score an average of 8.6 points

[b]5. The Bloodbath on the Stat Sheets[/b]

The Gridiron Grand Canyon that divides the haves from the have nots is evident on the stat sheet.

Quick Stats:
[i]Peyton Manning has a passer rating of 114.5 (he holds the record with a 121.1 passer rating in 2004).

Meanwhile, Cleveland quarterback Derek Anderson has posted an abysmal passer rating of 40.6. He’s on pace to become the lowest-rated qualifying passer (14 attempts per game) since Ryan Leaf in 1998 (39.0). Oakland’s JaMarcus Russell is not much better (47.2).

Neither of these two has even completed 50 percent of their passes, while Manning has completed 72.6 of his (a rating which could easily break the existing record).

Tom Brady threw five passes in one game, but there are eight teams who have thrown five or fewer touchdowns passes all year.[/i]

[b]6. The Haunting Specter of Elite Powers[/b]

Proponents of NFL parity have long held to the "Any Given Sunday" motto. This approach promotes the belief that any team can win in any given year. And, yes, it does happen occasionally. However, he fact of the matter is this: in today's NFL, there are four powerhouses that have dominated the league for more than a decade.

Denver, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and New England have won 11 of the past 14 AFC titles and have won 6 of the past 8 Superbowls (and 8/12).

After week 7, these four teams are a combined 22-4. If the playoffs were held on Sunday, they would hold four of the top five spots in the AFC.

Parity's Postmortem:

The NFL has long coveted equality and has done much to ensure that every team (theoretically) can compete with any other, so why has parity died?

Chff belives they have the answer. Check it out here: http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2927_Scary_news_for_the_NFL%3A_Parity_is_dead_%28finally%21%29.html

-------------------------------------------------------
So what do you think... is parity dead or is it too early to prounounce?

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='29 October 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1256837540' post='267984']
[size="1"][color="red"]Beware![/color] [i]Disclaimer: if you despise statistics, leave now.[/i][/size][size="2"][/quote]
[/size]
Har, har, har.

[quote name='darklight1216' date='29 October 2009 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1256837540' post='267984']Cold Hard Football Facts [b](i.e. meaningless numbers)[/b] has declared that parity in the NFL is dead....

[/quote]

Who was the runner up in the AFCCG last year? Who wasn't expected to do squat last year? If you answered "Ravens" to both of the previous questions, Congratulations! You are well on your way to understanding what parity is in the NFL.

Not sold? Who made their first ever appearence in the Super Bowl last year? Riiiight, "the Cardinals."

Another way to examine this is to look at the various division champs over the last several years. Some change more than others, but they all change.

IF there are 32 quality Head Coaches out there, only a few teams have found them/kept them. Then you also have to account for the GM and scouting for each team. The Lions and Browns have failed over and over at this (i.e, see draft position the last several years). A good example of this is Al Davis' decision to take Darius Heyward-Bey over Michael Crabtree.

While stats may not lie, they almost never tell the whole story and therefore decieve.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='29 October 2009 - 04:35 PM' timestamp='1256848520' post='268090']

Har, har, har.



Who was the runner up in the AFCCG last year? Who wasn't expected to do squat last year? If you answered "Ravens" to both of the previous questions, Congratulations! You are well on your way to understanding what parity is in the NFL.

Not sold? Who made their first ever appearence in the Super Bowl last year? Riiiight, "the Cardinals."

Another way to examine this is to look at the various division champs over the last several years. Some change more than others, but they all change.

IF there are 32 quality Head Coaches out there, only a few teams have found them/kept them. Then you also have to account for the GM and scouting for each team. The Lions and Browns have failed over and over at this (i.e, see draft position the last several years). A good example of this is Al Davis' decision to take Darius Heyward-Bey over Michael Crabtree.

While stats may not lie, they almost never tell the whole story and therefore decieve.
[/quote]
Did you really have to quote the entire post? O.o Especially since you didn't read it.

I realize that it's a long article (and for my part, it's a long paraphrase) but the occasional Cinderella team was addressed in the sixth point.

I'm glad you mentioned management, though. That's what Chff believes is behind the disparity.

I'm pretty sure that most people will disagree with this article, but I thought it was interesting, so I thought I'd share.

[MKdave]

What they should just do, for no reason other than because it might be fun, make every player and member of staff a free agent, and the owners have to reassemble their team from scratch. Here's betting Al Davis' Raiders would be right in contention for a superbowl...

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='29 October 2009 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1256849043' post='268094']
Did you really have to quote the entire post? O.o [b]Especially since you didn't read it.[/b] [img]http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img]

I realize that it's a long article (and for my part, it's a long paraphrase) but the occasional Cinderella team was addressed in the sixth point.

I'm glad you mentioned management, though. That's what Chff believes is behind the disparity.

I'm pretty sure that most people will disagree with this article, but I thought it was interesting, so I thought I'd share.
[/quote]


Hey I skimmed...., and I'm a good skimmer. lol

UPDATE: I edited my post (removed majority of the wordy quote by you). K? ;-)

[darklight1216]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='29 October 2009 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1256849434' post='268100']
Hey I skimmed...., and I'm a good skimmer. lol
[/quote]
Lol, yeah sure, but I was still able to tell that you missed the section about Denver, Indy, Pitt, and NE.

You need to brush up on your skim skills.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='29 October 2009 - 04:54 PM' timestamp='1256849670' post='268106']
Lol, yeah sure, but I was still able to tell that you missed the section about Denver, Indy, Pitt, and NE.

You need to brush up on your skim skills. [img]http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img]
[/quote]


I addressed those teams (albeit, not by name) when I said HC/Scouting, etc. needed to be taken into account. Teams DO have the opportunity to get better and compete but it's up to them. We have a salary cap and the worst teams have the first crack at the top players in the draft. It's up to each organization to choose wisely, but again, the opportunity is there. The NFL is, IN FACT, geared for parity. Ther can be no question about it.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='29 October 2009 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1256850541' post='268111']
I addressed those teams (albeit, not by name) when I said HC/Scouting, etc. needed to be taken into account. Teams DO have the opportunity to get better and compete but it's up to them. We have a salary cap and the worst teams have the first crack at the top players in the draft. It's up to each organization to choose wisely, but again, the opportunity is there. The NFL is, IN FACT, geared for parity. Ther can be no question about it.
[/quote]
There's no doubt that the league tries to make things equal. The writers of that article which I summarized believes that the league is, for the most part, unsuccessful in its endeavor.

The theory is that the league has created a system which rewards well managed teams and punishes poorly managed teams. According to the writers, a poorly managed team could once "splurge" for a couple of seasons and be competitive. Money was the great equalizer, but that weapon has been removed. Now teams are dependant upon having well run organizations and this has maximized the inequality.

I wouldn't know much about that for obvious reasons, but it's interesting to consider.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='29 October 2009 - 05:22 PM' timestamp='1256851379' post='268121']
There's no doubt that the league tries to make things equal. The writers of that article which I summarized believes that the league is, for the most part, unsuccessful in its endeavor.

[b]The theory is that the league has created a system which rewards well managed teams and punishes poorly managed teams. According to the writers, a poorly managed team could once "splurge" for a couple of seasons and be competitive. Money was the great equalizer, but that weapon has been removed. Now teams are dependant upon having well run organizations and this has maximized the inequality.[/b]

I wouldn't know much about that for obvious reasons, but it's interesting to consider.
[/quote]


I see nothing to substantiate that claim.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='29 October 2009 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1256851873' post='268124']
I see nothing to substantiate that claim.
[/quote]
Well that's 'cause you didn't read my summary or the article.

J/k

Even they admit that it's just a guess, but things are clearly very disproportionate in the league.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='29 October 2009 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1256852374' post='268128']
Well that's 'cause you didn't read my summary or the article. [img]http://boards.baltimoreravens.com/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img]

J/k

Even they admit that it's just a guess, [b]but things are clearly very disproportionate in the league.[/b]
[/quote]


Again, that is the fault of those teams' front office. Eddie Debartolo (49ers) once said, "Winning is too expensive." What a bunch of crap that is!

[JO_75]

I can agree to an extent. Yes there are tons of blow outs but that's just poor management with some of these teams. The Raiders are the Raiders. The Lions have a sign of life so they should be decent in 2 or 3 years. Other than the Rams and Bucs, Browns and the usual teams picking in the top 10 of the draft this is actually a pretty good season when talking about parity; Parity is ALIVE AND WELL!!

Titans, Panthers, Chargers, Dolphins all were division winners last season now looking at missing the playoffs. Mean while the Saints, Patriots, Bengals, Broncos, Packers are all new teams who didn't make the post-season last year. That is alot of new teams and a wonderful shakeup. Last Year the Cardinals made their first SB, well maybe the Texans can be that team this year who makes their first SB this season, and maybe McDaniels leads Denver to the SB in his first season. Sure there is alot of bad teams but the standings say different when you compare the division leaders at the end of last season to this year:

- Saints atop NFC South 6-0; 2008: 8-8 and dead last in NFC South.

- Bengals 5-2 atop the AFC North; 2008: 3rd with a 6-10 record.

- Titans 0-6 last in AFC South; 2008: Division Champ 13-3 # 1 Seed

- Denver atop AFC West 6-0; 2008: 8-8 No Playoff appearance

- Panthers 2-4 last in NFC South; 2008: 12-4 Division Champ

Though the games show no parity, standings show other wise. Compare last year to this season and see how different the Division leaders are at this point compared to the result of last season, and look at how tight the wild card races will be with several new teams having a chance to be in the post-season.

Parity is alive and well my friends enjoy it, I know I am.

[McBoller]

[quote name='JO_75' date='30 October 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1256877793' post='268308']


- Saints atop NFC South 6-0; 2008: 8-8 and dead last in NFC South.

- Bengals 5-2 atop the AFC North; 2008: 3rd with a 6-10 record.

- Titans 0-6 last in AFC South; 2008: Division Champ 13-3 # 1 Seed

- Denver atop AFC West 6-0; 2008: 8-8 No Playoff appearance

- Panthers 2-4 last in NFC South; 2008: 12-4 Division Champ


[/quote]
That doesnt show parity. That only shows how easy it is to go from worst to first and vice versa. Parity would be if 1st and last in the division were all within 2 or 3 games of eachother. Not SIX like the AFCw and NFCs

[thewarden86]

[quote name='McBoller' date='30 October 2009 - 09:32 AM' timestamp='1256909572' post='268341']
That doesnt show parity. That only shows how easy it is to go from worst to first and vice versa. [b]Parity would be if 1st and last in the division were all within 2 or 3 games of eachother.[/b] Not SIX like the AFCw and NFCs
[/quote]

That's not parity. Plus, I don't even think that's possible. Any mathematicians out there?

[McBoller]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='30 October 2009 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1256911569' post='268355']
That's not parity. Plus, I don't even think that's possible. Any mathematicians out there?
[/quote]
then what is?

parity = equality. In football terms, every team(or at least most teams) are competitive and have a chance to win any game. Right now there are teams(OAK, STL, CLE, TB, TEN) that have absolutely ZERO chance of beating other teams(NO, IND, NE, MIN, PIT)

When I said the thing about the records all I meant is that the standings would be closer. After this week there will probably be a couple 0-8 and a couple 8-0. This is not the MLB where winning is often dictated by who has the deepest pockets. To quote our previous president, its all about "strategery" Some are better at it than others. Id say Al davis is the worst, and it shows.

Youre always gonna have a couple teams that win 3 or 4 games. But when it starts getting to where you have a winless team, and 2 or 3 more with 2 wins or less and then a couple teams with 14+ wins...thats not parity.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='JO_75' date='30 October 2009 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1256877793' post='268308']
Sure there is alot of bad teams but the standings say different when you compare the division leaders at the end of last season to this year:[/quote]
On the other hand, if you check out things like say Super Bowl wins, and championship titles, things begin to look a little bit different:

Denver, Indy, New England and Pittsburgh have won 11 of the past 14 AFC titles. They've won six of the past eight Super Bowls and eight of the past 12. Over the last 15 years, the AFC’s Big Four have filled 19 of 30 spots in the AFC title game.
(Same article)
[quote]
Parity is alive and well my friends enjoy it, I know I am.
[/quote]
You enjoy watching blowouts and bottom feeder struggles?

Well good for you. It appears that there will probably be plenty more for you to enjoy.

[MagicianCamille]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='30 October 2009 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1256925698' post='268463']
You enjoy watching blowouts and bottom feeder struggles?

Well good for you. It appears that there will probably be plenty more for you to enjoy.
[/quote]

They're struggling [b]this season[/b]. Last year the Titans had the best season in football. There's going to be rebuilding years, failed rebuilding attempts due to poor management, complete turnarounds, and progressive but ultimately unsuccessful years for football teams. It's how it works.

I don't want an NFL where every team is hovering around 8-8 because every team is held to some rules that keep parity in place. I like it how it is...you need a good front office to make good strategic moves, you need a coaching staff that can get the players to buy into their system and work up game plans to beat the other teams, and of course you need the right group of players with chemistry and good work ethic and of course talent to go out and win football games.

This year, 3 teams have got it right. 3 have missed the mark completely. 26 are somewhere inbetween.

The NFL is fine.

[MKdave]

[quote name='MagicianCamille' date='30 October 2009 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1256928331' post='268482']
They're struggling [b]this season[/b]. Last year the Titans had the best season in football. There's going to be rebuilding years, failed rebuilding attempts due to poor management, complete turnarounds, and progressive but ultimately unsuccessful years for football teams. It's how it works.

I don't want an NFL where every team is hovering around 8-8 because every team is held to some rules that keep parity in place. I like it how it is...you need a good front office to make good strategic moves, you need a coaching staff that can get the players to buy into their system and work up game plans to beat the other teams, and of course you need the right group of players with chemistry and good work ethic and of course talent to go out and win football games.

This year, 3 teams have got it right. 3 have missed the mark completely. 26 are somewhere inbetween.

The NFL is fine.
[/quote]

Excellent post. I don't usually make a post simply to state that, but this is almost word for word my thinking on the subject.

[neepo13]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='29 October 2009 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1256851873' post='268124']
I see nothing to substantiate that claim.
[/quote]

Its called the NFL draft. Picking in the top 5, I'd even argue the top 10 period is a death sentence for a franchise if they make the wrong pick. Because they've got to pay them so much. In the past you could trade out of that spot and pick up a bunch of valuable picks, maybe some average players thrown in with those picks, and really rebuild your franchise when its in disarray. But now if you've got one of those top 5 picks, your basically stuck there. You've got to pick a guy and go with him, whether thats really what you want to do or not... its either that or face not being compensated well for the pick.

[McBoller]

I think the parity issue might be more with the SCORES of the games than the results. Yeah, you could have an 0-6 team that lost 6 nail-biters. Or you can have an 0-6 team that lose by 20, 22, AND 59 in 3 straight games.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='neepo13' date='30 October 2009 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1256940452' post='268563']
Its called the NFL draft. Picking in the top 5, I'd even argue the top 10 period is a death sentence for a franchise if they make the wrong pick. Because they've got to pay them so much. In the past you could trade out of that spot and pick up a bunch of valuable picks, maybe some average players thrown in with those picks, and really rebuild your franchise when its in disarray. But now if you've got one of those top 5 picks, your basically stuck there. You've got to pick a guy and go with him, whether thats really what you want to do or not... its either that or face not being compensated well for the pick.
[/quote]


Neeps, teams HAVE been trading out of their 1st and 2nd round spots (from 1 thru 64). But like you said, if they choose poorly they are doomed to suffer the consequences. It's still the responsibility of those teams to staff the right personnel in their scouting department (it's still in their hands, not the NFL's). Teams such as the Colts, Steelers, Ravens and most recently the Giants have been very successful here. Teams like the Lions and Raiders have failed miserably, but it's their own fault.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='McBoller' date='30 October 2009 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1256924368' post='268450']
then what is?

parity = equality. In football terms, every team(or at least most teams) are competitive and have a chance to win any game. Right now there are teams(OAK, STL, CLE, TB, TEN) that have absolutely ZERO chance of beating other teams(NO, IND, NE, MIN, PIT)

When I said the thing about the records all I meant is that the standings would be closer. After this week there will probably be a couple 0-8 and a couple 8-0. This is not the MLB where winning is often dictated by who has the deepest pockets. To quote our previous president, its all about "strategery" Some are better at it than others. Id say Al davis is the worst, and it shows.

Youre always gonna have a couple teams that win 3 or 4 games. But when it starts getting to where you have a winless team, and 2 or 3 more with 2 wins or less and then a couple teams with 14+ wins...thats not parity.
[/quote]

Parity in sports is probably a poor choice of words. But since the NFL chooses to use it then its meaning needs to be completely understood. Parity in the NFL does not imply that all teams are necessarily equal, but that they have the equal opportunity to be as good, or bad as all the rest. There are almost limitless factors to consider and that each organization is repsonsible for with regards to their own success/failure.

With that said, I disagree that one team has no chance of beating any other. The 1998 Denver Broncos went to the Meadowlands in week 14 and got beat by the lowly Kent Graham led NY Giants. They lost again to the Miami Dolphins. That's just one example.

Also, on paper who would have expected this years Broncos to be doing so well and the Cowboys so average? Almost every year we see the Super Bowl loser not even make the playoffs the following year.

Each year we are surprised by the success of a few previously horrible teams (49ers), as well as the failure of a previously dominant one (Titans). "Any given Sunday" applies with the match-up of ANY two teams.

[darklight1216]

Update:

"In the NFL, three teams have dominated this decade.
Despite league rules that make sustained excellence increasingly difficult, they are the resilient elite of the nation's most popular pro sport: the Indianapolis Colts, who carry a 19-game winning streak into Sunday's game at the Houston Texans; the Pittsburgh Steelers, the defending Super Bowl champions who've won two NFL titles in four years; and the New England Patriots, who have won three Super Bowls this decade and whose 109 regular-season wins in that time trail only the Colts' 111.

Through 10 games this year, the Colts are one of two undefeated teams. The Patriots are 7-3 and lead their division; the Steelers are 6-4."

On the other end of the spectrum are the perennial bottom feeders, the ultimate underdogs, in other words, the losers:

The Buffalo Bills (3-7): Have not been to the playoffs since 1999 and have had just one winning season since that time.

The Cleveland Browns (1-9): Have had two winning seasons and one playoff appearance since rejoining the NFL.

The Detroit Lions (2-9): Have won one playoff game since 1957, and have had one winning season since their last playoff berth in 1999.

The Oakland Raiders (3-8): Have not won more than five games in a season since 2002. (Nfl worst, if I'm not mistaken)

There are a few beneficiaries of the NFL's parity efforts such as the 2009 Bengals and Saints and 2008 Cardinals. However, even as the league continues to produce new playoff contenders each year, the majority of the leagues best and worst teams have not changed.

During the 2009 season, three teams reached the point in which they had lost 27 of their previous 30 games. Meanwhile 3 others were the only teams in the league to win at least 100 games this decade.

More info: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-11-26-nfl-parity-cover_N.htm

[J-man]

I agree, I've noticed a lot of blowouts this year. And that "Every given Sunday" thing is dead.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='J-man' date='27 November 2009 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1259362219' post='294662']
I agree, I've noticed a lot of blowouts this year. [b]And that "Every given Sunday" thing is dead.[/b]
[/quote]

Bengals/Raiders? Steelers/Chiefs?

It's alive and well.

[darklight1216]

[quote name='thewarden86' date='27 November 2009 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1259362272' post='294663']
Bengals/Raiders? Steelers/Chiefs?

It's alive and well.
[/quote]
Do you think that the Raiders and Chiefs, despite their impressive 6 games combined this season (including one upset over team that is arguably slightly better than mediocre), will not be competing for a top five pick in the next few drafts?

[Child Of Humanity]

I still believe the "any given Sunday" thing is alive and well. We see it every year and we certainly saw it last weekend.

[quote name='darklight1216' date='27 November 2009 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1259363087' post='294671']
Do you think that the Raiders and Chiefs, despite their impressive 6 games combined this season (including one upset over team that is arguably slightly better than mediocre), will not be competing for a top five pick in the next few drafts?
[/quote]

[thewarden86]

[quote name='darklight1216' date='27 November 2009 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1259363087' post='294671']
Do you think that the Raiders and Chiefs, despite their impressive 6 games combined this season (including one upset over team that is arguably slightly better than mediocre), will not be competing for a top five pick in the next few drafts?
[/quote]

Maybe the time-line for parity by your definition is year in and year out. For some teams that is how it works. But over the course of a decade plus, teams do go up and down (Colts, Patriots, Cardinals, etc). Besides I was responding to the "any given Sunday" comment. I've already made my case for parity my Dear. ;-)