Lots of 4-0 and 0-4 teams....

[wdm1219inpenna]

Last week I was feeling pretty blah, because the few games I could watch had a lot of potential mismatches. Giants were 3-0 playing at KC who are 0-3. This week, Tampa who is 0-4 takes on the Eagles 2-1. Seems many of the matchups so far during the regular season are lending themselves to getting many undefeated teams.

Is this a good thing in the long run? Is getting rid of "parity", which it seems will happen soon, good in the long run? Regular season games seem to be becoming more of a formality this season, and not a lot of really great matchups. Conversely, wouldn't having 8 or 12 dominant teams in the regular season possibly lend itself to a higher quality and/or caliber of playoffs than having 2 8-8 teams eek in as wildcard teams?

Seems there is no happy medium. If you want an entertaining regular season, parity is the way to go. If you want playoffs that don't have subpar teams quality, and produce potentially uninspired matchups, then perhaps going back to how it used to be might be the way it goes. It seems however, as I am a fading NFL fan, I want it both ways, and it's simply not possible. I am curious to hear your thoughts and takes on this. I grew up and became a fan of the NFL in the 70s, when the Cowboys, Redskins, Vikings, Rams, Dolphins, Raiders, Steelers & Colts dominated the decade, and there were many terrific playoff games against larger than life opponents. Far more exciting to me than seeing say the 8-8 Rams go to play the 9-7 Seahawks in a wildcard game.

[HedleyLamarr]

I kinda miss those days when you had the same dominant teams. As a Falcons fan, I never really knew how good a team we had until we played the 49ers. They were our measuring stick.

[rams80]

I'm going to dissent with you. That playoff game was awesome.

/It was also the last time the Rams beat Seattle.

//Seadragon will now slam the Rams.

[The_Admiral]

Is getting rid of "parity", which it seems will happen soon, good in the long run?

This already happened, but it happened slowly enough that nobody noticed. The Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Colts, Giants, and Eagles have established themselves as the upper class of the league and for the most part are not subject to the rollercoaster nature of the old "parity era." Meanwhile, the Browns, Rams, and Bills have spiraled so deep into mismanagement that no outside forces can help them. Parity's a myth in 2009.

[dfwabel]

There are 11 new coaches at the start this season (this includes Singletary and Cable). Of those 11, nine are a NFL head coach for the first time.

At this time last season, there were three unbeaten teams and four winless teams.

During your "Salad Days" of the 1970's, there was no free agency. The game is better today because of free agency.

[infrared41]

Is getting rid of "parity", which it seems will happen soon, good in the long run?

This already happened, but it happened slowly enough that nobody noticed. The Patriots, Steelers, Ravens, Colts, Giants, and Eagles have established themselves as the upper class of the league and for the most part are not subject to the rollercoaster nature of the old "parity era." Meanwhile, the Browns, Rams, and Bills have spiraled so deep into mismanagement that no outside forces can help them. Parity's a myth in 2009.

I think that has a little more to do with the good stable management of those teams than it does with any lack of parity. What do the teams you mentioned all have in common? They're either all rock solid organizations or they're punchlines. Other teams rise up and fall back down every season. The good teams you bring up just manage to stay good. The bad ones are bad for the exact reason you mentioned. Teams like the Bucs, Saints, Cardinals, etc. rise and fall. Parity is there for the taking. It's just a matter of having the front office and coaching staff that is capable of thriving under the current system. Parity still exists. Look no further than last season's NFC Champion to see it in action.

[The_Admiral]

Once you establish yourself as a "have" like the Patriots did, you don't play by the rules that everyone else does. You get to get Randy Moss for nothing, players sign with you far below market value to win, Junior Seau retires and comes out of retirement to announce "I did retire...I retired from not-being-a-Patriot!", and the rich get richer. It's okay; I like it this way. It's more honest. Caps suck.

[The_Admiral]

double post

[infrared41]

Once you establish yourself as a "have" like the Patriots did, you don't play by the rules that everyone else does. You get to get Randy Moss for nothing, players sign with you far below market value to win, Junior Seau retires and comes out of retirement to announce "I did retire...I retired from not-being-a-Patriot!", and the rich get richer. It's okay; I like it this way. It's more honest. Caps suck.

If that's really the case then what's wrong with The Cowboys? The Cowboys are The Yankees of the NFL. The marquee franchise. Why hasn't Jacksonville or Carolina stayed at the top? What about Tennessee? The Titans were a "have" for a long time before this season. The Ravens and Steelers aren't signing free agents to play for less than market value. Those teams simply plug in good draft picks to fill holes.

Hell, The Steelers will let you walk before they'll pay you "market value." These teams aren't playing by "different rules." They're simply out working everyone else. The Patriots system is simple. We won three Super Bowls in 4 years. Come help us win another. That won't last. There are only so many players who will forgo the money for a shot at a ring. That talent pool shrinks with every season The Pats aren't holding up the Lombardi trophy at the end of a season.

Since 2000 The Rams, Raiders, Bucs, Seahawks, Panthers, Cardinals, Titans and Rams have all played in a Super Bowl. Not one of those teams would be considered a "have" by your definition. If that list doesn't illustrate parity then I don't know what does. I'm not arguing that the teams you previously mentioned aren't at the top of the league right now. Still, if parity didn't exist then we'd be seeing Pittsburgh/New England/Baltimore/Indianapolis vs. New York/Philadelphia in The Super Bowl every season. Clearly, that is not the case.

[dfwabel]

Once you establish yourself as a "have" like the Patriots did, you don't play by the rules that everyone else does. You get to get Randy Moss for nothing, players sign with you far below market value to win, Junior Seau retires and comes out of retirement to announce "I did retire...I retired from not-being-a-Patriot!", and the rich get richer. It's okay; I like it this way. It's more honest. Caps suck.

Trades are trades, just like within the NBA when players are dealt to "free up cap space", the NFL does it but teams are not adept at bettering themselves as trades were generally not a part of the NFL system. It is sometimes more in their favor just to cut a player as salaries are not guaranteed, but for only the signing bonus, on most occasions.

While I am not a big fan of the salary cap, err cost certainty, in any league, it fits the NFL best. That or blame the late Gene Upshaw who in the 2006 CBA, which gave players 59 percent of all revenue instead of 60 percent of designated gross revenue, which didn?t include a lot of local revenue that clubs generated. 60% of designated gross revenue sounded good, but what it amounted to was 54 percent of total revenue, Upshaw said. (Credit: Sports Business Journal)

That is why he was going to be replaced regardless of his health.

[dfwabel]

Once you establish yourself as a "have" like the Patriots did, you don't play by the rules that everyone else does. You get to get Randy Moss for nothing, players sign with you far below market value to win, Junior Seau retires and comes out of retirement to announce "I did retire...I retired from not-being-a-Patriot!", and the rich get richer. It's okay; I like it this way. It's more honest. Caps suck.

If that's really the case then what's wrong with The Cowboys? The Cowboys are The Yankees of the NFL. The marquee franchise. Why hasn't Jacksonville or Carolina stayed at the top? What about Tennessee? The Titans were a "have" for a long time before this season. The Ravens and Steelers aren't signing free agents to play for less than market value. Those teams simply plug in good draft picks to fill holes.

Hell, The Steelers will let you walk before they'll pay you "market value." These teams aren't playing by "different rules." They're simply out working everyone else. The Patriots system is simple. We won three Super Bowls in 4 years. Come help us win another. That won't last. There are only so many players who will forgo the money for a shot at a ring. That talent pool shrinks with every season The Pats aren't holding up the Lombardi trophy at the end of a season.

Since 2000 The Rams, Raiders, Bucs, Seahawks, Panthers, Cardinals, Titans and Rams have all played in a Super Bowl. Not one of those teams would be considered a "have" by your definition. If that list doesn't illustrate parity then I don't know what does. I'm not arguing that the teams you previously mentioned aren't at the top of the league right now. Still, if parity didn't exist then we'd be seeing Pittsburgh/New England/Baltimore/Indianapolis vs. New York/Philadelphia in The Super Bowl every season. Clearly, that is not the case.

Hold on, after the three years which Danny White took DAL to the NFC title game and loss, they were not really good under Landry after 1983. That '83 team went 12-4 with losses to the LA Raiders (12-4),Redskins (14-2), 49ers (10-6) and Chargers (6-10) in the regular season then lost as a Wildcard to the Rams (9-7), err Eric Dickerson. Then they became average as they got low draft picks and could not find elite replacements with the draft. That was evident in Landry's final seasons.

After the 1984, Chuck Noll coached seven years and only made the playoffs once. Cowher was known as a tanker before XL too.

Management and their philosophy creates a team. Jerry meddles a lot and only gets success with guys who tell him to STFU. That also alienates the local fan, but produces wins. On the other hand, look at the mess which is Detroit and now Buffalo. Two great men, but who are "very hands-offs". They try to get people to assist them, but with Millen (DET), he had no track record in management in anything. When the Bills lost Polian, the lost a lot. We may see the same thing with Scott Pioli.

[infrared41]

Once you establish yourself as a "have" like the Patriots did, you don't play by the rules that everyone else does. You get to get Randy Moss for nothing, players sign with you far below market value to win, Junior Seau retires and comes out of retirement to announce "I did retire...I retired from not-being-a-Patriot!", and the rich get richer. It's okay; I like it this way. It's more honest. Caps suck.

If that's really the case then what's wrong with The Cowboys? The Cowboys are The Yankees of the NFL. The marquee franchise. Why hasn't Jacksonville or Carolina stayed at the top? What about Tennessee? The Titans were a "have" for a long time before this season. The Ravens and Steelers aren't signing free agents to play for less than market value. Those teams simply plug in good draft picks to fill holes.

Hell, The Steelers will let you walk before they'll pay you "market value." These teams aren't playing by "different rules." They're simply out working everyone else. The Patriots system is simple. We won three Super Bowls in 4 years. Come help us win another. That won't last. There are only so many players who will forgo the money for a shot at a ring. That talent pool shrinks with every season The Pats aren't holding up the Lombardi trophy at the end of a season.

Since 2000 The Rams, Raiders, Bucs, Seahawks, Panthers, Cardinals, Titans and Rams have all played in a Super Bowl. Not one of those teams would be considered a "have" by your definition. If that list doesn't illustrate parity then I don't know what does. I'm not arguing that the teams you previously mentioned aren't at the top of the league right now. Still, if parity didn't exist then we'd be seeing Pittsburgh/New England/Baltimore/Indianapolis vs. New York/Philadelphia in The Super Bowl every season. Clearly, that is not the case.

Hold on, after the three years which Danny White took DAL to the NFC title game and loss, they were not really good under Landry after 1983. That '83 team went 12-4 with losses to the LA Raiders (12-4),Redskins (14-2), 49ers (10-6) and Chargers (6-10) in the regular season then lost as a Wildcard to the Rams (9-7), err Eric Dickerson. Then they became average as they got low draft picks and could not find elite replacements with the draft. That was evident in Landry's final seasons.

After the 1984, Chuck Noll coached seven years and only made the playoffs once. Cowher was known as a tanker before XL too.

Management and their philosophy creates a team. Jerry meddles a lot and only gets success with guys who tell him to STFU. That also alienates the local fan, but produces wins. On the other hand, look at the mess which is Detroit and now Buffalo. Two great men, but who are "very hands-offs". They try to get people to assist them, but with Millen (DET), he had no track record in management in anything. When the Bills lost Polian, the lost a lot. We may see the same thing with Scott Pioli.

None of which changes the fact that The Cowboys are still considered The marquee team in the NFL. And if not "The" marquee team then they are definitely considered one of them. I never said they were great. I said that if admiral's theory is correct then The Cowboys are considered a "have" and that should provide them more than enough resources to be great every season. Yet they aren't.

While I think you were disagreeing with my post, in essence you basically illustrated what my point was in the first place. (Actually, I have no idea what point you're trying to make so I am guessing.) The Cowboys used to be a serious "have." They won three Super Bowls in the 90's. They are no longer performing at that level. If parity no longer exists then there is no reason that The Cowboys or Seattle or Carolina should be anywhere other than the top of the standings. All three of those teams were a "have" at one point. According to Admiral, once you're established as a "have" you play by "different rules." My point is that if what he says is true then why have the "haves" been changing every couple of years in a league where parity has disappeared? Wouldn't it seem to reason that if parity no longer exists we wouldn't have seen an NFC Champion from Arizona last season? Or one from Seattle in 2005? Conversely, if parity no longer exists, shouldn't we be seeing the same playoff teams in 2009 that we saw in say 2006?

[dfwabel]

There were less team so as a result the "second game" back then was going to be either the Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Oilers or Steelers (depending on network). The networks needed Dallas then and today even the Buck/Aikman crew is working the DAL@KC game. They have worked themselves important to teh NFC contract.

Today we have slightly changed demographics, yet there is still less than 25% of the USA population west of the Rockies. Latinos liove the Raiders and the Cowboys, so one still must market to the emerging populations and the teams they like.

When you combine the Landry years with the Jimmy/Troy/Emmitt years, people still recognize the Dallas Cowboys and rightfully so. Heck, Americans associate soccer with Brasil and Pele and yet they went 24 years without a World Cup.

[Saintsfan]

I think that its good for the NFL for fans to recognise the good and the bad teams. As long as the bad teams have the mechanism for improving and aren't stuck in the basement for ever (well aren't if they are well run) then I don't see a problem.

[infrared41]

There were less team so as a result the "second game" back then was going to be either the Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Oilers or Steelers (depending on network). The networks needed Dallas then and today even the Buck/Aikman crew is working the DAL@KC game. They have worked themselves important to teh NFC contract.

Today we have slightly changed demographics, yet there is still less than 25% of the USA population west of the Rockies. Latinos liove the Raiders and the Cowboys, so one still must market to the emerging populations and the teams they like.

When you combine the Landry years with the Jimmy/Troy/Emmitt years, people still recognize the Dallas Cowboys and rightfully so. Heck, Americans associate soccer with Brasil and Pele and yet they went 24 years without a World Cup.

And I still have no idea what your point is.

[quantum]

There were less team so as a result the "second game" back then was going to be either the Cowboys, Rams, Raiders, Oilers or Steelers (depending on network). The networks needed Dallas then and today even the Buck/Aikman crew is working the DAL@KC game. They have worked themselves important to teh NFC contract.

Today we have slightly changed demographics, yet there is still less than 25% of the USA population west of the Rockies. Latinos liove the Raiders and the Cowboys, so one still must market to the emerging populations and the teams they like.

When you combine the Landry years with the Jimmy/Troy/Emmitt years, people still recognize the Dallas Cowboys and rightfully so. Heck, Americans associate soccer with Brasil and Pele and yet they went 24 years without a World Cup.

The Cowboys being considered as America's Team is not just about championships, but being frequent participants in the playoffs. The Cardinals may have made it to the Super Bowl, but until they string together regular post-season appearances, they will continue to be looked upon as league doormats.