Is the lack of parity a problem for the league?

[The Leaper]

The rise of the NFL to the status of the unchallenged uber-sport of the American society has come about by and large because of the parity created by Pete Rozell and Paul Tagliabue. With record TV revenues and attendence numbers, the NFL has spent much of the last 2 decades with few worries to contemplate.

However, the 2007 season might be a sign that there is a crack in the NFL's mighty armor. The parity which the league has championed in recent years has certainly become far less evident.

We could have a season where 4 teams dominate on the basis of their elite QB play, potentially winning over 92% of the games they played...and with over half of their tiny fraction of losses coming in games where these teams squared off against each other.

The previously undefeated 1972 Dolphins, who have enjoyed an annual champaign celebration thanks to the parity created by the league, are looking up the numbers of their local AA chapters as the Patriots march toward a 16-0 season. The Cowboys are heading toward 15 wins...their only loss coming to those marching Patriots. The Colts and Packers are heading toward 14 wins...with one of their losses coming against either the Patriots or Cowboys.

In other words...only 2 of the 28 teams outside of this formidable foursome has actually been able to beat one of them this season.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, several NFL franchises are on the verge of becoming irrelevant. The Falcons lost their coach to Arkansas...and he didn't even bother to open the door on his quick exit, crashing through it clumsily. The 49ers were a fashionable pick to challenge for their division before the season, but are incapable of producing any offense and aren't great at stopping anyone either...and don't even have a top draft pick this year to help them retool. The Rams are aging rapidly. The Cardinals, Lions, Bengals, Raiders and Redskins are ready to add to their recent listing of annual frustrations. That famous Dolphin franchise who celebrates their perfect 1972 season is about to endure an equally imperfect 2007 season.

In other words...after hearing for years and years how it would be nearly impossible for anyone to go 16-0 or 0-16, we are about to see both...IN THE SAME SEASON!

Does the NFL have a problem? In their quest to enhance offense and protect the QB, have they made the position too important? Has the proliferation of juniors entering the NFL draft made it too much of a crapshoot, making it more difficult for bad teams to quickly find a solution to their woes? Are rookie salaries too high and too much of a cap-buster for top picks in an era where the face of college football is changing drastically? These are some of the questions the NFL is going to have to start asking itself in the offseason.

The parity created by the salary cap will be unable to sustain the league on its own if the answers to some of these questions are affirmative. The league's popularity is due to the fan's knowledge that next season can (and probably will) be much different. However, for some teams, their fans are probably starting to recognize that they might be getting duped. Combine that with taking games away from the fans and sticking them on the NFL Network...not to mention the continual challenge the NFL has with criminal behavior from a handful of players...and the NFL might have to actually do something other than maintain the status quo in the years ahead.

Proof of that is in this year's attendance figures. After 4 straight strong record setting seasons, the NFL attendance figures are virtually the same as they were last year at this point. The potential for that to decline slightly in the last few weeks of the year, considering the lackluster playoff picture, is probably pretty good.

[FritzDontBlitz]

I think the only potential stumbling block for the NFL is the threat of pay per view - a.k.a. "The NFL Network" - eventually turning off its fanbase by making them pay extra for what they used to get for free.

Even a fanbase as loyal as the NFL's has its limits.

The only problem I have with parity is the god-awful lack of depth teams have nowadays. Most teams cannot field a serviceable group of backups. Usually the loss of one key starter on offense or defense can completely derail the entire unit, if not the team itself.

[MadtownPacker]

Re: Is the lack of parity a problem for the league?

We could have a season where 4 teams dominate on the basis of their elite QB play, potentially winning over 92% of the games they played...and with over half of their tiny fraction of losses coming in games where these teams squared off against each other.

Damn fool, you wrote this? Some good sheeze. I hadn't even thought about this fact up I quoted. Thats a trip.

I like the setup. If teams suck they can't buy their way to the top (unless it's the cowboys). They have to be well managed and home grown. The Packers are a perfect example of what teams need to start doing. Just a few years ago the cap was loaded and a bunch of high priced FAs where not earning their paychecks. Now the team has guys who want to earn their paychecks and have their whole prime in front of them. Throw in some needed vets that aint finished and you have a good team.

Teams have to get with the program or get left behind.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think you are seeing the well-run teams AND their QB's rising to the top of the heap. Since you brought up QB and it's importance, and rightly so, here is a list of current starting QB's. Anyone outside of a shortlist inspiring confidence in you if you are a fan of that team?

List order based on NFL.com passing yards
(team QB need comments)

1. Tom Brady, Pats (set)
2. Brett Favre, Rodgers, Packers (strong short-term, good outlook)
3. Tony Romo, Cowboys (set)
4. Drew Brees, Saints (set)
5. Carson Palmer, Bengals (set, but team stinks on ice)
6. John Kitna, Lions (OK, but could be looking for upgrade since he's older)
7. Peyton Manning, Colts (set)
8. Matt Hasselbeck, Seahawks (set)
9. Derek Anderson, Browns (Strong, but can he be consistent every year?)
10. Jay Cutler, Ramsey, Broncos (Promising, but still waiting to take off)
11. Eli Manning, Giants (Average, but in NY that means iffy)
12. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers (set, but he needs to elevate his game)
13. Jason Campbell, Collins, Redskins (Promising, not set)
14. Phillip Rivers, Chargers (OK, needs to take next step like Eli)
15. Kurt Warner, Leinart, Rattay, Cardinals (OK, Leinart the answer?)
16. Donovan McNabb, Feeley, Eagles (Up in the air)
17. Matt Schaub, Rosenfels, Texans (Good, not great)
18. Joey Harrington, Leftwich, Redman, Falcons (Questions, no answers)
19. Jeff Garcia, McCown, Bucs (short-term, OK, not long-term)
20. David Garrard, Jags (Efficient, need depth)
21. Vince Young, Titans (regression year, big questions)
22. Damon Huard, Croyle, Chiefs (unsettled, no long term answer)
23. Marc Bulger, Frerotte, Rams (mulligan year on injuries)
24. Kyle Boller, McNair, Ravens (unsettled, no long-term answer)
25. Kellen Clemens, Pennington, Jets (unsettled, possibly promising)
26. Rex Grossman, Griese, Orton, Bears (unsettled)
27. Daunte Culpepper, McCown, Russell, Raiders (future hasn't started)
28. Tarvaris Jackson, Holcombe, Bollinger, Vikings (Some promise)
29. J.P. Losman, Edwards, Bills (some promise)
30. Vinny Testaverde, Delhomme, Carr, Moore, Panthers (unsettled)
31. Cleo Lemon, Green, Beck, Dolphins (unsettled, bad team)
32. Trent Dilfer, Alex Smith, 49'ers (unsettled, bad team)

I think the QB postition is important whether it's emphasized by the league or not. This is just a snap shot of this year, but you don't find too many teams that are going to have much success without great QB play. In the case of Carson Palmer, he's not the problem, but can still be part of the solution. Hard to lay it all on the QB, but that is a huge indicator of success or failure for each team.

[Tony Oday]

I would still say there is parity in the NFL. Save for the New England Cheating Bastards that are well over the cap but nobody can figure it out or a team with a franchise QB every week a team can beat another team and put together a nice run or fail.

GB nobody thought we would be this good

NO nobody thought they would be that bad

SF, ARI, Det all are perennial dissapointments but that is a gms fault Millen when do we get to see the bags again!

I think this league is the most balanced of any in prof sports.

[mmmdk]

I'm more worried with the lack of moral and the corrosion of the NFL code of honor.

Had Belicheat and the Pats been a pro soccer team in Europe then they would have been stripped of victory vs Jets plus demoted to a lower league - instantly. Think Juventus of Turin in Italy; same thing happened to them. Since you can't demote in the NFL then the only option is suspend the team for 2007. In Europe a fine would've been the least of the punishment; like the Pats care about that puny amount of money! A 1st pick when they, luckily for them, have 49ers 1st pick in 2008!? Pats are laughing and are setting the tone for the future of the NFL.

This season is strange; I love Packers season and NFL in general but I still have don't acknowledge the Pats; should they win the SB then it's one of the biggest scandals in US sports history. The very fact they are even playing is insane and destructive for football.

Mike Vick got his judgement and took it.

Belicheats and Pats were left of the hook; do they have oil!?

BEAT BELICHEAT AND HIS PATSIES!!!

[gbgary]

i think there's plenty of parity. take the top and bottom four teams away and you've bunch of basically average teams...and the fact that the top and bottom four almost totally change every year is additional proof.

[Badgepack]

I think it all boils down to the first few games of the season, if a team starts hot they tend to get the attitude needed to win games. If a team starts slow, they normally continue to play poorly or fight like heck to stay near .500. Last year the Saints, this year the Packers, who knows about next year. Of course, there are always the elite frontrunners, some of who will falter, like this years BEARS .

[Lurker64]

I think that really the NFL system (as put in place by the league) encourages parity as much as it reasonably can. I think right now part of the issue right now is the difference between good management and good coaching versus bad management and bad coaching.

So much of the bad QB play can be attributed to coaches of bad teams feeling under so much pressure to succeed right away that they thrust their QB into the limelight immediately and the QB doesn't do well because they're playing on a bad team, he struggles, gets frustrated, develops bad habits and is generally ruined as an NFL QB within a couple of years. Rookie QBs are generally only productive when you stick them in on good teams (e.g. Roethlisberger), but the good teams don't usually end up drafting the NFL ready QBs.

At the same time, teams need to adjust to the rest of the league finally getting a handle on free agency. Earlier on some teams had an advantage over other teams because they had mastered cap management and other team had not, and they ended up with more talent by way of scooping up other teams cap casualties. Nowadays, there are very few talented players who on the open market for cap reasons, and most of the talented players that do end up on the open marked their original team decides they don't want for some reason or another. But still, even though FA classes are becoming increasingly weak teams tend to pay the going rate for players. Nate Clements is a pretty good player, but he doesn't deserve to be the highest paid defensive player in history and his $80 million with $22 million guaranteed contract is astonishing. Note, if you will, that Clements plays on one of the very bad teams this year.

The whole "lack of parity" in the league is fueled by the bad teams being desperate to not be bad and selling the farm to sign "the one guy who will be the answer". When he's not, you're worse off than you were to start with.

Also a few teams could draft better. A lot of teams have spent pick after pick after pick trying to fill a position of need without getting the "elite talent" they thought they might get (e.g. Vikings on DEs, Bears on RBs, Lions on WRs, Sherman era-Packers on CBs to stay within the division.) Bad drafts really set teams back, since growing from the inside organically is probably the most reliable way for an NFL team to improve and the draft is the best infusion of talent available to a team.

[LL2]

I think you are seeing the well-run teams AND their QB's rising to the top of the heap. Since you brought up QB and it's importance, and rightly so, here is a list of current starting QB's. Anyone outside of a shortlist inspiring confidence in you if you are a fan of that team?

List order based on NFL.com passing yards
(team QB need comments)

1. Tom Brady, Pats (set)
2. Brett Favre, Rodgers, Packers (strong short-term, good outlook)
3. Tony Romo, Cowboys (set)
4. Drew Brees, Saints (set)
5. Carson Palmer, Bengals (set, but team stinks on ice)
6. John Kitna, Lions (OK, but could be looking for upgrade since he's older)
7. Peyton Manning, Colts (set)
8. Matt Hasselbeck, Seahawks (set)
9. Derek Anderson, Browns (Strong, but can he be consistent every year?)
10. Jay Cutler, Ramsey, Broncos (Promising, but still waiting to take off)
11. Eli Manning, Giants (Average, but in NY that means iffy)
12. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers (set, but he needs to elevate his game)
13. Jason Campbell, Collins, Redskins (Promising, not set)
14. Phillip Rivers, Chargers (OK, needs to take next step like Eli)
15. Kurt Warner, Leinart, Rattay, Cardinals (OK, Leinart the answer?)
16. Donovan McNabb, Feeley, Eagles (Up in the air)
17. Matt Schaub, Rosenfels, Texans (Good, not great)
18. Joey Harrington, Leftwich, Redman, Falcons (Questions, no answers)
19. Jeff Garcia, McCown, Bucs (short-term, OK, not long-term)
20. David Garrard, Jags (Efficient, need depth)
21. Vince Young, Titans (regression year, big questions)
22. Damon Huard, Croyle, Chiefs (unsettled, no long term answer)
23. Marc Bulger, Frerotte, Rams (mulligan year on injuries)
24. Kyle Boller, McNair, Ravens (unsettled, no long-term answer)
25. Kellen Clemens, Pennington, Jets (unsettled, possibly promising)
26. Rex Grossman, Griese, Orton, Bears (unsettled)
27. Daunte Culpepper, McCown, Russell, Raiders (future hasn't started)
28. Tarvaris Jackson, Holcombe, Bollinger, Vikings (Some promise)
29. J.P. Losman, Edwards, Bills (some promise)
30. Vinny Testaverde, Delhomme, Carr, Moore, Panthers (unsettled)
31. Cleo Lemon, Green, Beck, Dolphins (unsettled, bad team)
32. Trent Dilfer, Alex Smith, 49'ers (unsettled, bad team)

I think the QB postition is important whether it's emphasized by the league or not. This is just a snap shot of this year, but you don't find too many teams that are going to have much success without great QB play. In the case of Carson Palmer, he's not the problem, but can still be part of the solution. Hard to lay it all on the QB, but that is a huge indicator of success or failure for each team.

It was mentioned this morning on Mike and Mike in the Morning that, according to Mike Greenburg, that it's having a better than avg to great QB that determines a team winning the SB, and not the old adage that defense wins championships.

I think you need both. Just look at the Colts. They couldn't win it all until their defense started to play well in the playoffs last year.

[packinpatland]

We could have a season where 4 teams dominate on the basis of their elite QB play,

This is true, but an elite QB still needs a good O-Line and someone to throw to. How many times to you see Brady have to scramble ?, and look what a difference Moss has made.

[Harlan Huckleby]

All I know is I watched a lot of shitty games last weekend.

The Packers creamed Raiders (OK, not so horrible to watch, but competitive games are more fun.)

Patriots beat up Steelers. New Orleans stomped Atlanta. The Viking game was a blowout, if memory serves. All the games were bad.