Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    The author is one of the guys who run Cold, Hard Football Facts, one of my favorite NFL websites:
    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ity/index.html

    [size=12pt]Six signs parity is dead in NFL[/size]
    Kerry J. Byrne > COLD HARD FOOTBALL FACTS
    Posted: Wednesday October 28, 2009 4:40PM; Updated: Wednesday October 28, 2009 4:40PM

    Rest in peace, parity.

    The NFL's decades-long effort to produce equality on the playing field is dead and buried. In fact, it suffered a gruesome, unwatchable demise in Week 7 of the 2009 season.

    Perhaps it's only fitting that parity's final bloody demise came just days before Halloween, in a week that produced a record six four-touchdown blowouts in the space of a few hours on Sunday.

    Parity is not only dead, it's been walking around like the undead for most of the past decade, kept alive only by lazy pigskin pundits who dusted the cobwebs off the catch-phrase every time they needed to explain away every close game or surprising playoff run.

    But instead of parity, what the NFL has these days is something much more frightening: the NFL has a crisis of competition.

    Week after week this year, the haunting disparity between the league's haves and have-nots threatens to produce results we typically see from the University of Florida's non-conference schedule. The NFL, like college football, is now a two-tiered league in which the powerful elite can be reasonably counted upon to not only win on Sunday, but to humiliate the league's second-class citizens.
    In his conclusion at the end, he fails to mention the current salary structure of the draft, which I firmly believe handcuffs the bad teams by forcing them to spend such a large chunk of their cap number on unproven rookies.
    Think Oakland would like NOT to have to be paying JaMarcus Russell the big bucks he's getting as the #1 pick from a couple years back?
    Ever notice how the same teams (Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, KC) always seem to be hanging around the top-10 in the draft?

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  2. #2
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    I thought I was going to be disappointed by this article when they started out with some of the freakish things like the 59-0 score on an 0-6 team on a field covered in wet snow.
    But it did get to the meat of the topic at the end.
    That is management.


    The other thing that I think could be discussed is quality QB in what seems to be a pass happy NFL.
    Kinda goes along with some of what he said, along the same lines.
    The NFL protects the QB at all cost.
    If a P.Man doesn't go down once in awhile, how do they get knocked down a peg.
    Also, if they continue to make it easier to throw the ball so this can be a point happy league, only teams with good to great to just consistent QBs will be winners.

    I just heard that the Bucs have a lot of cap space, they are a team poised for rebuilding.
    Seems like they are throwing games/players and are going into rebuilding mode trying to find a QB right now to build around.
    (Edit: I don't mean the players are going out trying to lose, just that the management is willing to lose a few games in the process.)

    Titans got lucky with consistent QB play last season and they had a slightly better defense anchored by Hanyesworth.
    More importantly, they weren't trying to fight back from a 59-0 deficit, they had some ball control balance.

    Rams?
    Their owner died a while back.
    They have coaching changes. Bulger has struggled with new systems from the new coaches.

    The Browns, Lions, Chiefs all have 1 win.
    The Titans, Bucs, and Rams all have 0 wins.

    Tennessee Titans




    Tampa Buc





    St.Louis Rams

















    9-7










    14-2
    7-9














    12-4










    7-9
    11-5













    7-9










    12-4
    12-4













    5-11









    8-8
    5-12













    11-5










    6-10
    4-12













    4-12









    8-8
    8-8














    9-7










    3-13
    10-6













    9-7










    2-14
    13-3













    0-7










    0-7
    0-6

    The last item that I think plays into this is the rookie contracts.
    You have a guy like J.Russ that the Raiders have put the team on his back.
    He came across millions of GUARANTEED money. Does he care if he plays well?
    If you aren't mentally tough to earn your money, you will not succeed.
    There is more than talent, there is the right attitude.
    How do teams measure this? It is difficult to do.
    They need to put in escalators in the contracts and make them earn that money.
    Something different needs to be done, that is money that has been hijacked from the organization.
    Who cares right, it is the Raiders. LOL! But it happens to other teams as well.
    ROOKIES need to be capped and escalated.
    There has to be incentives for them to earn their money.

    So, my three main concerns are Management, League Rules on the field each Sunday, and Rookie Contracts.

  3. #3
    midgensa's Avatar
    midgensa is offline Jersey Retired Free Kick Specialist 3 Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,310

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    Parity is not dead. You cannot rank parity based on the current season ... what makes parity is over time.
    Sure the Bucs and Rams suck, but they know they are only a couple of good picks and moves away. And the both won a Super Bowl in the last ten years!
    Even the Raiders were in a Super Bowl in the last ten years. The Bengals sucked last year and are good this year.
    The Dolphins went 1-15 and then 11-5 and now are 2-4.
    Parity is not about individual seasons ... it is about the number of teams that have a fair opportunity to win it all. By looking at the most recent Super Bowl champions (Steelers, Colts, Giants, Steelers) it is easy to see that parity is alive and well.

  4. #4
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    "midgensa" wrote:
    Parity is not dead. You cannot rank parity based on the current season ... what makes parity is over time.
    Sure the Bucs and Rams suck, but they know they are only a couple of good picks and moves away. And the both won a Super Bowl in the last ten years!
    Even the Raiders were in a Super Bowl in the last ten years. The Bengals sucked last year and are good this year.
    The Dolphins went 1-15 and then 11-5 and now are 2-4.
    Parity is not about individual seasons ... it is about the number of teams that have a fair opportunity to win it all. By looking at the most recent Super Bowl champions (Steelers, Colts, Giants, Steelers) it is easy to see that parity is alive and well.
    Don't even hint at actually using a valid statistical analysis rather than individual data points.
    It will cause aneurysms in the weak-minded.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    snowinapril's Avatar
    snowinapril is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    13,404

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    "midgensa" wrote:
    Parity is not dead. You cannot rank parity based on the current season ... what makes parity is over time.
    Sure the Bucs and Rams suck, but they know they are only a couple of good picks and moves away. And the both won a Super Bowl in the last ten years!
    Even the Raiders were in a Super Bowl in the last ten years. The Bengals sucked last year and are good this year.
    The Dolphins went 1-15 and then 11-5 and now are 2-4.
    Parity is not about individual seasons ... it is about the number of teams that have a fair opportunity to win it all. By looking at the most recent Super Bowl champions (Steelers, Colts, Giants, Steelers) it is easy to see that parity is alive and well.
    Ya, the Patriots didn't win.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    This season may or may not end up having more teams at either end of the standings as opposed to the middle - there's still a long way to go.
    But overall the NFL continues to be almost unpredictable from year to year.

    Looking at the NFL win-loss records from 2002-2008, the correlation from year to year is minimal.
    Well, here are the stats:

    Seasons Compared Correlation Coefficient
    02-03 and 03-04 0.19
    03-04 and 04-05 0.24
    04-05 and 05-06 0.26
    05-06 and 06-07 0.29
    06-07 and 07-08 0.26
    07-08 and 08-09 0.21

    For reference, consider the following two points:

    First, any correlation coefficient having a magnitude 0.3 or less is considered to represent only a small correlation.


    Second, the correlation number for both the NBA (0.65 between 07-08 and 08-09) and MLB (0.48 between 08 and 09) are significantly higher (I've check more seasons for the NBA before but lost the data, I believe that is representative though).
    Another way of saying this (looking also at the weekly values for the NFL) is that we know more about how an NBA season will end one month before it starts than how the NFL season will end one month after it begins.

    Also, the Detroit Lions won a game.

    "Zeus" wrote:
    ...

    In his conclusion at the end, he fails to mention the current salary structure of the draft, which I firmly believe handcuffs the bad teams by forcing them to spend such a large chunk of their cap number on unproven rookies.
    This is brought up a lot in this kind of topic, and I just don't buy it.
    Sure, I agree that Oakland would love to have all the money they gave and promised Russell back.
    But the salary cap numbers don't seem to agree with the theory that teams at the top of the draft have a harder time of it.

    When I look through the cap numbers(estimated cap numbers as of 9/13/09), the feeling I get is that those perennial bad teams are spread out across the board.
    The Bucs, Chiefs, and Browns have been pretty bad with some high picks the past few years, but are 3 of the teams with the most space.
    The Lions and Raiders are near the worst teams in terms of wins and cap space.
    But so are good teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Giants.

    I don't see a trend.

    The cap space is just too high in general, so if a team wants to get right up against it they have to go out and get a bunch of players.
    Heck, the Vikings were able to sign Favre to a $12 million/year contract in August and still have over $5 million in cap space.
    That's enough to sign a pro bowl type player at most positions - not that they're available in the fall - and over 20 teams have that kind of space.

    The other part is that really the first handful, not even all the way through the first ten picks, are big hits on your salary cap.
    Consider that AD at #7 is about $5 million/year against the cap.
    That's something like 4% of the total cap.

    And keep in mind that good teams have to pay to re-sign their players.
    Just off the top of my head it seems that good teams, especially Super Bowl teams, usually have a lot of players that other teams want.
    They may have to pay a premium if they're going to keep the team together.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  7. #7
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    "Overlord" wrote:
    This season may or may not end up having more teams at either end of the standings as opposed to the middle - there's still a long way to go.
    But overall the NFL continues to be almost unpredictable from year to year.

    Looking at the NFL win-loss records from 2002-2008, the correlation from year to year is minimal.
    Well, here are the stats:

    Seasons Compared Correlation Coefficient
    02-03 and 03-04 0.19
    03-04 and 04-05 0.24
    04-05 and 05-06 0.26
    05-06 and 06-07 0.29
    06-07 and 07-08 0.26
    07-08 and 08-09 0.21

    For reference, consider the following two points:

    First, any correlation coefficient having a magnitude 0.3 or less is considered to represent only a small correlation.


    Second, the correlation number for both the NBA (0.65 between 07-08 and 08-09) and MLB (0.48 between 08 and 09) are significantly higher (I've check more seasons for the NBA before but lost the data, I believe that is representative though).
    Another way of saying this (looking also at the weekly values for the NFL) is that we know more about how an NBA season will end one month before it starts than how the NFL season will end one month after it begins.

    Also, the Detroit Lions won a game.

    "Zeus" wrote:
    ...

    In his conclusion at the end, he fails to mention the current salary structure of the draft, which I firmly believe handcuffs the bad teams by forcing them to spend such a large chunk of their cap number on unproven rookies.
    This is brought up a lot in this kind of topic, and I just don't buy it.
    Sure, I agree that Oakland would love to have all the money they gave and promised Russell back.
    But the salary cap numbers don't seem to agree with the theory that teams at the top of the draft have a harder time of it.

    When I look through the cap numbers(estimated cap numbers as of 9/13/09), the feeling I get is that those perennial bad teams are spread out across the board.
    The Bucs, Chiefs, and Browns have been pretty bad with some high picks the past few years, but are 3 of the teams with the most space.
    The Lions and Raiders are near the worst teams in terms of wins and cap space.
    But so are good teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Giants.

    I don't see a trend.

    The cap space is just too high in general, so if a team wants to get right up against it they have to go out and get a bunch of players.
    Heck, the Vikings were able to sign Favre to a $12 million/year contract in August and still have over $5 million in cap space.
    That's enough to sign a pro bowl type player at most positions - not that they're available in the fall - and over 20 teams have that kind of space.

    The other part is that really the first handful, not even all the way through the first ten picks, are big hits on your salary cap.
    Consider that AD at #7 is about $5 million/year against the cap.
    That's something like 4% of the total cap.

    And keep in mind that good teams have to pay to re-sign their players.
    Just off the top of my head it seems that good teams, especially Super Bowl teams, usually have a lot of players that other teams want.
    They may have to pay a premium if they're going to keep the team together.
    Nice work.

    Brzezinski is god of Winter Park.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  8. #8
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,916

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    "Overlord" wrote:
    This season may or may not end up having more teams at either end of the standings as opposed to the middle - there's still a long way to go.
    But overall the NFL continues to be almost unpredictable from year to year.

    Looking at the NFL win-loss records from 2002-2008, the correlation from year to year is minimal.
    Well, here are the stats:

    Seasons Compared Correlation Coefficient
    02-03 and 03-04 0.19
    03-04 and 04-05 0.24
    04-05 and 05-06 0.26
    05-06 and 06-07 0.29
    06-07 and 07-08 0.26
    07-08 and 08-09 0.21

    For reference, consider the following two points:

    First, any correlation coefficient having a magnitude 0.3 or less is considered to represent only a small correlation.


    Second, the correlation number for both the NBA (0.65 between 07-08 and 08-09) and MLB (0.48 between 08 and 09) are significantly higher (I've check more seasons for the NBA before but lost the data, I believe that is representative though).
    Another way of saying this (looking also at the weekly values for the NFL) is that we know more about how an NBA season will end one month before it starts than how the NFL season will end one month after it begins.

    Also, the Detroit Lions won a game.

    "Zeus" wrote:
    ...

    In his conclusion at the end, he fails to mention the current salary structure of the draft, which I firmly believe handcuffs the bad teams by forcing them to spend such a large chunk of their cap number on unproven rookies.
    This is brought up a lot in this kind of topic, and I just don't buy it.
    Sure, I agree that Oakland would love to have all the money they gave and promised Russell back.
    But the salary cap numbers don't seem to agree with the theory that teams at the top of the draft have a harder time of it.

    When I look through the cap numbers(estimated cap numbers as of 9/13/09), the feeling I get is that those perennial bad teams are spread out across the board.
    The Bucs, Chiefs, and Browns have been pretty bad with some high picks the past few years, but are 3 of the teams with the most space.
    The Lions and Raiders are near the worst teams in terms of wins and cap space.
    But so are good teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Giants.

    I don't see a trend.

    The cap space is just too high in general, so if a team wants to get right up against it they have to go out and get a bunch of players.
    Heck, the Vikings were able to sign Favre to a $12 million/year contract in August and still have over $5 million in cap space.
    That's enough to sign a pro bowl type player at most positions - not that they're available in the fall - and over 20 teams have that kind of space.

    The other part is that really the first handful, not even all the way through the first ten picks, are big hits on your salary cap.
    Consider that AD at #7 is about $5 million/year against the cap.
    That's something like 4% of the total cap.

    And keep in mind that good teams have to pay to re-sign their players.
    Just off the top of my head it seems that good teams, especially Super Bowl teams, usually have a lot of players that other teams want.
    They may have to pay a premium if they're going to keep the team together.
    Anyone who can use the word "coefficient" in a football discussion deserves his own spreadsheet. Probably asked this before, but were do you get all your data from my friend?

    Amazing post.
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  9. #9
    V4L's Avatar
    V4L
    V4L is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    20,612

    Re: Six signs parity is dead in NFL

    "Prophet" wrote:
    "Overlord" wrote:
    This season may or may not end up having more teams at either end of the standings as opposed to the middle - there's still a long way to go.
    But overall the NFL continues to be almost unpredictable from year to year.

    Looking at the NFL win-loss records from 2002-2008, the correlation from year to year is minimal.
    Well, here are the stats:

    Seasons Compared Correlation Coefficient
    02-03 and 03-04 0.19
    03-04 and 04-05 0.24
    04-05 and 05-06 0.26
    05-06 and 06-07 0.29
    06-07 and 07-08 0.26
    07-08 and 08-09 0.21

    For reference, consider the following two points:

    First, any correlation coefficient having a magnitude 0.3 or less is considered to represent only a small correlation.


    Second, the correlation number for both the NBA (0.65 between 07-08 and 08-09) and MLB (0.48 between 08 and 09) are significantly higher (I've check more seasons for the NBA before but lost the data, I believe that is representative though).
    Another way of saying this (looking also at the weekly values for the NFL) is that we know more about how an NBA season will end one month before it starts than how the NFL season will end one month after it begins.

    Also, the Detroit Lions won a game.

    "Zeus" wrote:
    ...

    In his conclusion at the end, he fails to mention the current salary structure of the draft, which I firmly believe handcuffs the bad teams by forcing them to spend such a large chunk of their cap number on unproven rookies.
    This is brought up a lot in this kind of topic, and I just don't buy it.
    Sure, I agree that Oakland would love to have all the money they gave and promised Russell back.
    But the salary cap numbers don't seem to agree with the theory that teams at the top of the draft have a harder time of it.

    When I look through the cap numbers(estimated cap numbers as of 9/13/09), the feeling I get is that those perennial bad teams are spread out across the board.
    The Bucs, Chiefs, and Browns have been pretty bad with some high picks the past few years, but are 3 of the teams with the most space.
    The Lions and Raiders are near the worst teams in terms of wins and cap space.
    But so are good teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Giants.

    I don't see a trend.

    The cap space is just too high in general, so if a team wants to get right up against it they have to go out and get a bunch of players.
    Heck, the Vikings were able to sign Favre to a $12 million/year contract in August and still have over $5 million in cap space.
    That's enough to sign a pro bowl type player at most positions - not that they're available in the fall - and over 20 teams have that kind of space.

    The other part is that really the first handful, not even all the way through the first ten picks, are big hits on your salary cap.
    Consider that AD at #7 is about $5 million/year against the cap.
    That's something like 4% of the total cap.

    And keep in mind that good teams have to pay to re-sign their players.
    Just off the top of my head it seems that good teams, especially Super Bowl teams, usually have a lot of players that other teams want.
    They may have to pay a premium if they're going to keep the team together.
    Nice work.

    Brzezinski is god of Winter Park.

    He sure is

Similar Threads

  1. Trio of teams has failed to take advantage of NFL parity
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 11:50 AM
  2. Parity Exists … At Least in NFC
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-08-2008, 11:58 AM
  3. Dead.
    By Prophet in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-29-2007, 07:24 AM
  4. The Parity Myth-TMQ
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2007, 07:15 AM
  5. Parity
    By Webby in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-26-2003, 01:08 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •