Has Parity Really Worked In The NFL?

I think the NFL likes the fact that so many teams are still alive for the playoffs this late in the season. The longer that drags out the better as more fans will stay interested.

I also think the NFL loves those 'worst to first' scenarios where a team comes out of nowhere and free agency allows that to happen.

More than anything I think what watered down the playoffs a bit was when they added the extra wild card team. That's what has allowed the 9-7 and 8-8 possibilities. Before the extra wild card a 10 win season wasn't even a guarantee to get you in.


A la the '85 Redskins. Ten wins. No playoffs. 1985 Washington Redskins statistics - pro-football-reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was1985.htm)

A la the '85 Redskins. Ten wins. No playoffs. 1985 Washington Redskins statistics - pro-football-reference.com (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was1985.htm)

yep I remember that well

I'll admit, I'm stealing this from Mike Greenberg this morning, I thought he made this great point.

Look at the 2 most dominant defenses from the modern era. The '85 Bears and the '00 Ravens. How many Super Bowls did they win combined? Two.

Now look at how many Super Bowls were won by teams led by the likes of Bradshaw, Aikman, Montana, and now Brady. Too many to even count on two hands.

QBs win championships in this league. It's no coincidence that when you have a team that juggles QB's year in and year out you're typically talking about a bad team.

Case in point: The 2004 Redskins. #3 overall defense -- they stopped the run, the pass, and they were tough to score against.

Results? A 6-10 season. Even the greatest defenses won't stop a good or above average offense all day. At some point, there will be a breakdown somewhere, and when your offense can't score, it can take as little as 10-13 points to beat you.

Defense wins championships is the biggest myth out there.

When you have teams like the Steelers and Colts winning Superbowls it is hard to argue that it has worked, at least in terms of creating the anybody can win it type of environment that the NFL had hoped for.

Is it good for the game? Personally I think it is, if for no other reason than youg get to get excited every year no matter where you are from. In what other sport do fans follow the draft so ravenously?

Still, as a fan of the richest team you can't help but wonder how the baseball model would be for the Yankees of football. Pretty good I think.

When you have teams like the Steelers and Colts winning Superbowls it is hard to argue that it has worked, at least in terms of creating the anybody can win it type of environment that the NFL had hoped for.

Is it good for the game? Personally I think it is, if for no other reason than youg get to get excited every year no matter where you are from. In what other sport do fans follow the draft so ravenously?

Still, as a fan of the richest team you can't help but wonder how the baseball model would be for the Yankees of football. Pretty good I think.


We were once the Yankees of football. During the 80's when we were having all of that success we had the second highest paid teams behind the 49ers.

AAAAAHHHHHH!!!! The good ol days.

Parity is good for the NFL, but bad for us and San Fran.

USATODAY.com (http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2007)

The Giants are doing more with the Least $!

Okay, well here's my question stated differently and perhaps better. Has the influx of college coaches helped parity in the NFL at all or has it been a non-factor?

This is a good thread. As far as the college coaches, with the quick departures of Petrino and Saban...I think you'll see owners now very hesitant to hire a big name college coach, because now they've set the standard for everyone to think if their NFL team isn't successful in a few years, or hell not even 1 full one, they're gonna go running back to college when SEC or big school needs a new coach. Jimmy Johnson is really the only success story.

And as far as other coaching moves, every losing team owner wants to be the 2006 Saints, bring in a brand new head coach...some new free agents...and BAM! Instant success....AND asses in the seats!

I think parity is one of the most misused terms in the sports vocabulary...

I think ppl associate it with competitiveness, when in actuality it means equality. A league that is competitive is MUCH better than a league in which every team is equal.

I think a competitive league (like the NFL) in my mind is a league:
-in which a team can turn around from bottom of the barrel to contender in a short amount of time (1-2 years)
-dynasty's are hard to come by and even harder to sustain
-the best team throughout the season doesn't necessarily get a pass or automatically win, but rather the best team at a given time wins (like the NFL playoffs or March Madness).
-the talent level is spread around such that no one player can make or break a team.

If all teams were perfectly equal, then football would be boring. It would by like watching a pickup bball game at a rec center. There would be no favorites or underdogs. There would be no push for the playoffs or blowout scores. Players would have nothing to be inspired for b/c even if they lose a game, they could be back in it with a win. The whole season would have a flat sort of feeling until the last few games (much like an MLB or NBA season).