The myth of "Parity" in the NFL

Exactly. The same argument can be made regarding expanded playoffs, and adding a game to the regular season. Keep cities involved and tuned in deeper into the calendar.

 

You would be absolutely shocked how many people know nothing about the business side of football. Nothing at all. And at the end of the day, there is parity. It doesn't translate unless you put the exact same person in the exact same position on every team and let the chips fall where they may with the draft. You still have to have a competent scouting staff, coaching staff, and more to develop the players you draft.

The teams that win consistently are the ones that do that properly. The ones who don't do that don't win. Every once in a while you get lightning in a bottle, but it's rare.

 

They should get rid of that salary cap. There is no parity and the league, in terms of quality play, is as bad as I've seen it in my life.

 

Understand that I am not defending the use of a salary cap, just defending the spirit in which it is employed. But the Green Bay Packers, a storied franchise that competes with every big boy in the league because they are able to draft and develop players properly, would turn into the Tampa Bay Rays. They would draft and develop players that would ultimately feed the teams willing to spend.

Without a minor-league system to sustain some of the smaller market teams, it would get ugly in a hurry.

I guess maybe I am depending a salary cap. Lol especially in a sport where players go directly from college.

 

Fair enough, but unless you can point to a group of teams that are very well run, develop their players well, and somehow don't compete, they are never going to listen. The really bad teams don't compete, and that's solely because they are poorly run.

 

There are a bunch of things the NFL can do to make the system better.

One - fix the comp pick system. It’s always favored the better teams but it now favors teams with good quarterbacks even more. I don’t know how to fix it but it doesn’t make sense that the good teams should continually be rewarded with more picks.

Two - Bird rights. Not sure how to deploy it but it’s about the only thing the NBA does correctly. Teams should be able to retain their own players at a somewhat reasonable rate without being penalized by the cap. There would have to be restrictions (i.e. you can only use it on one player a free agency or something), but it seems like it’d be cool to get a 5% discount because you recognized a talent and drafted well.

Three - some sort of penalty for cap violations? Feels like the Saints have been over the cap for a decade and they never have a problem retaining or signing anyone.

Four - they need to figure out the league wide offensive line issue. Wasn’t there a record number of QB’s that played this year? Maybe just cause we’re the Jets but it seems like these guys drop like flies around the league.

 

with no salary cap, scouting, coaching and developing players is even more important, not less important

 

Aren't we being naive in thinking parity is the purpose of the cap? This is the NFL, where greed always trumps the good of the game.

The cap keeps salaries in line. That's why the MLB players' association has fought tooth and nail against a cap. Each NFL team has to field a roster and put 22 men on the field every Sunday. If there's a ceiling on how much teams can spend to do so, it keeps salaries lower than they would be without a cap.

What the NFL wants to foster is the illusion of parity. It wants each fan base to believe its team can reach the playoffs. It has set things up to keep playoff hopes alive for as many teams for as long as possible.

The reality is that there can never be true parity because:

1. teams with a top-flight QB have a tremendous advantage over teams without one;

2. teams with well-run front offices will be able to navigate the cap better than those with lousy front offices. Just think of the teams that always seem to be in cap hell.

3. teams that draft well have a leg up because players on their first contract are usually cheaper than players who hit free agency.

4. Teams with smart coaching staffs have an advantage because good coaches get the best out of the players on their rosters. Other coaches don't.

 

It gives an incentive for good players to stay with bad teams because they offer more money. Of course, it might not help parity because the good teams will have the same advantage but I think good drafting should be rewarded.

 

That's life. Any walk of life. I don't think it's a book smart or nerd smart more of a survivival smart? Street smart? Social smart? I can't describe it exactly.

The best way I can sum it up and it's a oversimplification but it's the truth I think. Having as many people as possible that know what they are doing in whatever job it is they're doing. Be it football, plumbing, electrician, baking, wall street whatever it may be. It's not about luck it's really not.

The Lions had Stafford how many years? He won nothing there he leaves goes to LA immediatey wins a SB.

Andy Reid won in Philadelphia and now KC because he knows what he's doing. Bill Parcells went from team to team always turned teams around, always won because he knew what he was doing. It's not luck.

Pittsburgh always contends, always drafts well because they know what they are doing.

 

And in the other conference the Niners are playing in their third Super Bowl since 2012.

Meanwhile I've never seen my team play in a Super Bowl.

Doesn't the story go that Pete Rozelle dreamed of parity?

 

You'd be surprised what a couple owners who really want to win would do.

But the bigger issue here is you want parity when the salary cap doesn't give parity but rather meritocracy. Getting rid of the cap won't give parity either, just get rid of meritocracy.

 

As some have alluded- there is a big difference between parity of resources (salary in this case) between teams, and parity in outcomes. Some teams are just better run organizations. They win. Consistently. Some teams aren't. They lose. Consistently.
But in inputs there is parity and in outcomes there's actually pretty good parity outside a few outliers on either end of the winning/losing spectrum. Keep the cap I say.