Parity In The Nfl

[Ed_Reed20]

I just stumbled upon this cool graphic that shows just parity-filled the NFL has been this season. The article's last sentence did sting a bit though.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/A-demonstration-of-NFL-parity-in-one-handy-circ?urn=nfl-288589

[jaege]

WOW. Funny how that works.

[ravensdfan]

We played the Bengals prior to their implosion. They nearly beat the Patriots as well. Shoot, the Patriots gave up 30 some points to them. They also did get a little help from 2 questionable calls that led to 2 FGs. 6 pts. So I'm not too worried about what people say about us losing to the Bengals in Week 2. Now, if it had been last week, well, that might be different.

As for the parity in the NFL, um, Seattle is leading their division with a 5-5 record. It is possible that someone in that division could make the playoffs with a losing record. Not sure that is a good thing for the NFL.

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='ravensdfan' timestamp='1290687517' post='550505']
We played the Bengals prior to their implosion. They nearly beat the Patriots as well. Shoot, the Patriots gave up 30 some points to them. They also did get a little help from 2 questionable calls that led to 2 FGs. 6 pts. So I'm not too worried about what people say about us losing to the Bengals in Week 2. Now, if it had been last week, well, that might be different.

[b]As for the parity in the NFL, um, Seattle is leading their division with a 5-5 record. It is possible that someone in that division could make the playoffs with a losing record. Not sure that is a good thing for the NFL.[/b]
[/quote]

It is a good thing in my opinion. When every team has a chance, the fans stay interested. That division is so bad because of poor drafts and management by those teams but at the Rams seem to be on the rise.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='Ed_Reed20' timestamp='1290697536' post='550541']
It is a good thing in my opinion. When every team has a chance, the fans stay interested. That division is so bad because of poor drafts and management by those teams but at the Rams seem to be on the rise.
[/quote]
I just think it would be horrible if the winner of that division was 8-8 or 7-9. That's why I'm pulling for the Seahawks the rest of the way.

For some reason, and I can't pin point what it is, I think there comes a point when there is too much parity. Imo, there always needs to be at least one 13-3 or better team in the league and there should always be at least one or two 3-13 teams or worse. I feel that the very lowest a #1 seed should be is 12-4. The last time a #1 seed finished with a sub 12-4 record was 2002, and that was the 11 win Raiders who got to the SB. The #1 seed in the NFC that year was the 12-4 Eagles, so in other words, no one in football in 2002 had 13 regular season wins. That sounds like too much parity to me.

Another thing that gets me is 8-8 teams making the playoffs. I mean making the playoffs is supposed to be for the good teams only, not the good, the average and the losing. It just doesn't add up lol.

The last time a #2 seed finished with a sub 11 win record was 2006 when the Saints finished 10-6 and made it to the NFC title game before getting blown out in Chicago. The NFC, btw, was horrendous in 2006.

Bottomline is, I feel there always needs to be really really good teams, average teams and really really bad teams. I want to see a little bit of everything year in and year out. Just my opinion.

[JohnJohnson]

This can probably be done for most seasons. What's remarkable is that it was done after week 11.