Parity?
August 22nd 2011 19:41
Over an 11-year span (from 2000 through and including 2010), there's a type of parity, if you will. A 3-tier parity.
There are several teams that are just better. Period, end of story. Out of 11 possible seasons, two sported winning records 10 times (Indy & New England). Two sported winning records 9 times (Philly & Pittsburgh). 6 teams won over 100 games (New England, Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philly & Green Bay). The AFC has been represented by New England 4 times, Pittsburgh 3 times and Indy twice. The NFC's only repeater in that time span would be the New York Giants.
Then there are the teams that...well, suck. Thankfully, every single football team in the NFL has had at least 1 winning record in that 11-year span. Yes, even Detroit. However, the Lions are the worst, sporting 1 winning season and a paltry winning percentage of 27.3%. Other teams earning only 1 winning season include Buffalo (39.8%), and Houston. Houston is special - they have been in existence for only 9 of the 11 years, and sported 8-8 records twice. Still, non-winning seasons are non-winning seasons. 8 teams have lost over 100 games - Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Oakland, Washington, Detroit, San Francisco and Arizona.
Parity exists because the other 16 teams are somewhere around 88 wins (break-even). Teams that have earned winning records 5 or 6 times include Miami, Tennessee, Denver, San Diego, NY Giants, Dallas, Minnesota, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Seattle. There are Super Bowl winners and losers in this group, so there is hope to go from anywhere to the final game.
But parity is stronger yet in the playoffs. Detroit, Buffalo and Houston never made it. Cleveland made it once. Then there are the juggernauts, including New England (8 times), Philly (9 times), Indy (10 times), Pittsburgh, Green Bay & Baltimore (7 times each).
What draws my eye is how the same teams are making it year after year. 11 long, difficult seasons and there are some teams who just make it and others who just don't. You can very easily write off about 1/4 of the teams in the league at the start of every year based on recent history - Cincinnati, Detroit and Buffalo are the bottom feeders. You should pretty much write in the Eagles and Colts to hit the playoffs.
If the true test of parity is the number of teams who represent a conference, then clearly the NFC has more parity. 10 different teams represented the NFC; the Giants two appearances were separated by 8 years. The AFC on the other hand, is the New England/Pittsburgh/Indy show. Curiously, or not, depending on your point of view, that's Brady/Roethlisberger/Manning. Hmmm.
What does this all mean? Is there, or is there not, parity in the NFL?
Yes...and no.
Yes, there is parity. The league practically guarantees it. A playoff schedule is rewarded with a harder schedule in the next. The salary cap prevents certain teams from stock-piling talent due to deeper financial pockets. With a limited roster, one injury can doom a team (Patriots with Brady for example). The talent of the players is so immense and so close that it is realistic to expect that any team can beat another on any given Sunday. It's true. That's parity, and it gives the league what it needs - hope. With hope, any fan of any team can hope that his or her team will figure it out, make a run and get to the promised land.
But where things are not, nor ever will be, on an even playing field is in the front office. As you can see from this analysis, the front office of certain teams get gold-star A plus marks. Better yet, it is the consistency that is the hallmark of greatness here. Philly, 9 winning seasons and 9 playoff appearances with 1 title game appearance. Indy, with 10 winning seasons and playoff seasons, with 1 title in 2 apperances. Baltimore, with 7 playoff seasons and 1 title to their name. Green Bay, with 7 playoff seasons and 1 title to their name. Of course, New England's 3 wins in 4 tries and Pittsburgh's 2 in 3 remain the top standard of long-term excellence. And what do you have here? In each place, you have stable ownership who works on a long-term plan. You have a stable GM in place working well between ownership and the coach. You have dynamic coaches in place that know how to use the talent they have. Everything is in place to make it possible to get the right guys, put them in a position to win, teach them to win and then go out and watch them win. That's why certain teams will always win in the NFL, and why certain franchises will always lose. The NFL cannot govern the decisions an owner makes, or the decisions a GM makes. But look at the results of teams like the Pats, Ravens, Eagles, Steelers, Colts and Packers. Their success starts in the front office. There's no parity there.
There are several teams that are just better. Period, end of story. Out of 11 possible seasons, two sported winning records 10 times (Indy & New England). Two sported winning records 9 times (Philly & Pittsburgh). 6 teams won over 100 games (New England, Indy, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philly & Green Bay). The AFC has been represented by New England 4 times, Pittsburgh 3 times and Indy twice. The NFC's only repeater in that time span would be the New York Giants.
Then there are the teams that...well, suck. Thankfully, every single football team in the NFL has had at least 1 winning record in that 11-year span. Yes, even Detroit. However, the Lions are the worst, sporting 1 winning season and a paltry winning percentage of 27.3%. Other teams earning only 1 winning season include Buffalo (39.8%), and Houston. Houston is special - they have been in existence for only 9 of the 11 years, and sported 8-8 records twice. Still, non-winning seasons are non-winning seasons. 8 teams have lost over 100 games - Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Oakland, Washington, Detroit, San Francisco and Arizona.
Parity exists because the other 16 teams are somewhere around 88 wins (break-even). Teams that have earned winning records 5 or 6 times include Miami, Tennessee, Denver, San Diego, NY Giants, Dallas, Minnesota, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Seattle. There are Super Bowl winners and losers in this group, so there is hope to go from anywhere to the final game.
But parity is stronger yet in the playoffs. Detroit, Buffalo and Houston never made it. Cleveland made it once. Then there are the juggernauts, including New England (8 times), Philly (9 times), Indy (10 times), Pittsburgh, Green Bay & Baltimore (7 times each).
What draws my eye is how the same teams are making it year after year. 11 long, difficult seasons and there are some teams who just make it and others who just don't. You can very easily write off about 1/4 of the teams in the league at the start of every year based on recent history - Cincinnati, Detroit and Buffalo are the bottom feeders. You should pretty much write in the Eagles and Colts to hit the playoffs.
If the true test of parity is the number of teams who represent a conference, then clearly the NFC has more parity. 10 different teams represented the NFC; the Giants two appearances were separated by 8 years. The AFC on the other hand, is the New England/Pittsburgh/Indy show. Curiously, or not, depending on your point of view, that's Brady/Roethlisberger/Manning. Hmmm.
What does this all mean? Is there, or is there not, parity in the NFL?
Yes...and no.
Yes, there is parity. The league practically guarantees it. A playoff schedule is rewarded with a harder schedule in the next. The salary cap prevents certain teams from stock-piling talent due to deeper financial pockets. With a limited roster, one injury can doom a team (Patriots with Brady for example). The talent of the players is so immense and so close that it is realistic to expect that any team can beat another on any given Sunday. It's true. That's parity, and it gives the league what it needs - hope. With hope, any fan of any team can hope that his or her team will figure it out, make a run and get to the promised land.
But where things are not, nor ever will be, on an even playing field is in the front office. As you can see from this analysis, the front office of certain teams get gold-star A plus marks. Better yet, it is the consistency that is the hallmark of greatness here. Philly, 9 winning seasons and 9 playoff appearances with 1 title game appearance. Indy, with 10 winning seasons and playoff seasons, with 1 title in 2 apperances. Baltimore, with 7 playoff seasons and 1 title to their name. Green Bay, with 7 playoff seasons and 1 title to their name. Of course, New England's 3 wins in 4 tries and Pittsburgh's 2 in 3 remain the top standard of long-term excellence. And what do you have here? In each place, you have stable ownership who works on a long-term plan. You have a stable GM in place working well between ownership and the coach. You have dynamic coaches in place that know how to use the talent they have. Everything is in place to make it possible to get the right guys, put them in a position to win, teach them to win and then go out and watch them win. That's why certain teams will always win in the NFL, and why certain franchises will always lose. The NFL cannot govern the decisions an owner makes, or the decisions a GM makes. But look at the results of teams like the Pats, Ravens, Eagles, Steelers, Colts and Packers. Their success starts in the front office. There's no parity there.
| 9 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
