BillsVet Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Tim Keown has an article in the recent ESPN the Magazine which makes the point that parity ended this season. As an example, he points out the top 5 teams in the league going into Week 14 had a .714 advantage in winning percentage over the 5 worst franchises. Along with attendance being down (probably in part to the recession) fans are remaining home in cities where teams are losing. He cites the Raiders, who drew a mere 40,720 against Kansas City. Regardless, there are several issues on the horizon for the world's most popular sports league: an uncapped year, probable CBA issues in 2010-11, a decrease in several teams values, and the shift to an uneven league with perpetual winners and losers. Good read if you get a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 We sell out this crap and they want to take our team away. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The defending champion Steelers lost to the Raiders, Chiefs, Browns & Bears. The defending NFC champion Cardinals were swept by the 49'ers, but beat the Vikings. The Bengals swept the Ravens & Steelers and lost to the Raiders. The Titans started at 0-6, and are now 7-7. The Eagles swept the Giants and lost to the Raiders. You sure that parity is dead in the NFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Mom Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The death of parity is more about how rule changes have made having a good QB so important that once you have a good one, you are competitive for 10 years in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The death of parity is more about how rule changes have made having a good QB so important that once you have a good one, you are competitive for 10 years in most cases. Excellent point. You can't breathe on a QB or a Wide Receiver without getting called for a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Mom Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Excellent point. You can't breathe on a QB or a Wide Receiver without getting called for a penalty. It's pretty rare to find beauty and brains in one package, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The made fun of him a few years ago, but Ralph called it. When teams don't share income, the league falls apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilbuffalobob Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Right, the AFC log jam at 7-7 = dead parity. Look peeps, there's a dangerous thing called freedom of speach. Don't believe everythang you read. Especially from turds like Tim Keown. Who's he... Mel Kuypers old bendover rag bag twink? Parity dead in the NFL is just a stupid thing to say. Take a look at our opponant this week. Pete Rozelle- cold, dead & grinning at the 'parity' of his accomplishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Tim Keown has an article in the recent ESPN the Magazine which makes the point that parity ended this season. As an example, he points out the top 5 teams in the league going into Week 14 had a .714 advantage in winning percentage over the 5 worst franchises. Along with attendance being down (probably in part to the recession) fans are remaining home in cities where teams are losing. He cites the Raiders, who drew a mere 40,720 against Kansas City. Regardless, there are several issues on the horizon for the world's most popular sports league: an uncapped year, probable CBA issues in 2010-11, a decrease in several teams values, and the shift to an uneven league with perpetual winners and losers. Good read if you get a chance. I think there's plenty of parody in the league. Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo have been parodies of themselves for the better part of a decade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 The point is not that there's a huge middle of teams with 6-7 wins at this point. It's more so the fact that the same teams are above the pack, especially in the AFC. You've got NE, IND, SD, BAL, and PIT in the playoffs seemingly every year. Over in the NFC, NYG, PHI, and GB come to mind. Sure there might be a team that squeaks into the playoffs, but it's the same teams that are winning 10+ games every year. And while there are exceptions and down years, the bad teams like STL, CLE, DET, BUF, and OAK aren't moving ahead at all. This is much bigger than QB's and rules associated with hitting them or interfering with WR's. It's the fact that: a small elite group of teams is out-pacing the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The point is not that there's a huge middle of teams with 6-7 wins at this point. It's more so the fact that the same teams are above the pack, especially in the AFC. You've got NE, IND, SD, BAL, and PIT in the playoffs seemingly every year. Over in the NFC, NYG, PHI, and GB come to mind. Sure there might be a team that squeaks into the playoffs, but it's the same teams that are winning 10+ games every year. And while there are exceptions and down years, the bad teams like STL, CLE, DET, BUF, and OAK aren't moving ahead at all. This is much bigger than QB's and rules associated with hitting them or interfering with WR's. It's the fact that: a small elite group of teams is out-pacing the rest. Is it much bigger than the QB's? Look at the GOOD teams you named. EVERY ONE of them has an ELITE QB except Bal & Flacco is the best QB they have had since Dilfer. Now look at the BAD teams you named. NONE of them have even a DECENT QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The made fun of him a few years ago, but Ralph called it. When teams don't share income, the league falls apart. ?????? WTF? Team's ARE sharing revenue. The league (and teams) made tons of money last year---a fantastic season financially. The suggestion that parity "is dead" is silly. How did Arizona get into the SB last season?? Or the Giants the year before that? Because they were "dominant"? The worst teams get to pick first from the pool of the best college players every year. Everyone is given the same number of picks to use as they see fit. Look, all teams are chosing from the same talent pool of players, coaches, FO. It's not "the League's" fault if owners are bad at assembling successful talent. Finding a great QB has ALWAYS been a key to success---it has nothing to due with "rule changes". It's not "luck" or "coincidence" that teams that have been perennially successful have solid ownership and great FO talent. The League didn't make that happen. This stuff gets repeated all the time. Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbyte Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Too many idiot owners who hire bad GMs over and over. Too many teams that can not run a draft anywhere near successful. Too many owners that are constantly overpaying for free agents that never work out. Too many stupid coaches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACor58 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 It's pretty rare to find beauty and brains in one package, no? Only if that is you in your avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The death of parity is more about how rule changes have made having a good QB so important that once you have a good one, you are competitive for 10 years in most cases. I believe that has always been true since FA began in 1993.... The teams that were great for a long period in the 90s also had a great QB.....QBs is the most important to have dominance.....Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 There are too many NFL teams and not enough talent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 Is it much bigger than the QB's? Look at the GOOD teams you named. EVERY ONE of them has an ELITE QB except Bal & Flacco is the best QB they have had since Dilfer. Now look at the BAD teams you named. NONE of them have even a DECENT QB. Tell me who is it that picks QB's? Because each team with a solid QB also has a good to excellent GM. The point is simple: the NFL cannot equally distribute the human effect, i.e. talent evaluators and front office personnel, to each team like it can salary cap dollars and draft picks. It's human nature that some people are better than others at football management and this means teams stuck in the doldrums (OAK, STL, BUF) while others win nearly every season (IND, PIT, NE, NYG). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsfaninFl Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 I think there's plenty of parody in the league. Oakland, Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo have been parodies of themselves for the better part of a decade! LOL Very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flbillsfan#1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Tell me who is it that picks QB's? Because each team with a solid QB also has a good to excellent GM. The point is simple: the NFL cannot equally distribute the human effect, i.e. talent evaluators and front office personnel, to each team like it can salary cap dollars and draft picks. It's human nature that some people are better than others at football management and this means teams stuck in the doldrums (OAK, STL, BUF) while others win nearly every season (IND, PIT, NE, NYG). I TOTALLY agree a GOOD GM is paramount. The point about QB's is an excellent GM will make it a priority to get one, even then some luck is involved. If the Bills had lost another game or two, Big Ben would be a Buffalo Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 at the moment, Parity is NOT dead !! .......NFL league rules make for the most competitive balance in all of sports.....reverse draft (bad teams pick first), salary cap (same finances), scheduling (1st place teams play other first place teams), Free Agency, etc..... parity ends in the FRONT OFFICES.....where there is a vast difference in the quality of decision makers when it comes to evaluating talent. thats where the bills are sorely lacking. people like Bill Parcells and Bill Polian have proven track records of success for multiple organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Does this actually suprise anyone? I mean seriously. The NFL is going to end up doing away with 4 of the lowest revenue teams and go back to 28. It will be where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Link? Don't have one, don't need one to see the writing in the bright neon sign on the wall. Our new Commish will be the one to issue it in, count on it. 'but but but ICE he is from the WNY area, he promised....' Yeah and Santa Claus, the easter bunny and tooth fairy exist. Our commish doesn't give one rats ass about Buffalo or any other low end franchise. He is trying to make the NFL as much money as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 The defending champion Steelers lost to the Raiders, Chiefs, Browns & Bears. The defending NFC champion Cardinals were swept by the 49'ers, but beat the Vikings. The Bengals swept the Ravens & Steelers and lost to the Raiders. The Titans started at 0-6, and are now 7-7. The Eagles swept the Giants and lost to the Raiders. You sure that parity is dead in the NFL? Its sure dead in Buffalo 0-10 this decade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 Does this actually suprise anyone? I mean seriously. The NFL is going to end up doing away with 4 of the lowest revenue teams and go back to 28. It will be where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Link? Don't have one, don't need one to see the writing in the bright neon sign on the wall. Our new Commish will be the one to issue it in, count on it. 'but but but ICE he is from the WNY area, he promised....' Yeah and Santa Claus, the easter bunny and tooth fairy exist. Our commish doesn't give one rats ass about Buffalo or any other low end franchise. He is trying to make the NFL as much money as possible. It's not about total revenue, it is all about profit. The Bills are perennially one of the more profitable teams in the league. WHy on Earth would any commissioner seek to alter this? Makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevergiveup Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 It's not parity. NFL refers to it as Competitve Excellence. Sincerely, Commissioner Goodell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 The defending champion Steelers lost to the Raiders, Chiefs, Browns & Bears. The defending NFC champion Cardinals were swept by the 49'ers, but beat the Vikings. The Bengals swept the Ravens & Steelers and lost to the Raiders. The Titans started at 0-6, and are now 7-7. The Eagles swept the Giants and lost to the Raiders. You sure that parity is dead in the NFL? good points. there is perfect parity in my opinion. every year there are a few teams that come from nowhere, and a few that fall hard and surprise everyone. An uncapped year may tweak things a little in the wrong direction but i believe its Rogers priority to avoid it and that an agreement will be reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted December 25, 2009 Author Share Posted December 25, 2009 It's not about total revenue, it is all about profit. The Bills are perennially one of the more profitable teams in the league. WHy on Earth would any commissioner seek to alter this? Makes no sense. The NFL has become a stadium building league, which ultimately creates bigger revenue. Look around the NFL and there are or will be new digs built in NYC, Washington, Dallas, New England, and many other cities in the past 15 years. There is zero chance of a new stadium built in WNY, what with the financial problems at the state and local revenue. And we know the current owner won't privately finance anything at his advanced age. People will say RWS is fine, but with the NFL helping to finance the new NYC Giants/Jets place, it's clear they want more new stadiums to create more revenue. Buffalo already has one of the oldest homes in the NFL. If there's parity in the NFL, then why are the Giants, Eagles, Chargers, Colts, Steelers, and Patriots in the playoffs every season? If half the playoff teams are perennial, that speaks to something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 [quote name='BillsVet' date='Dec 25 2009, 01:47 PM' post='1679774' If there's parity in the NFL, then why are the Giants, Eagles, Chargers, Colts, Steelers, and Patriots in the playoffs every season? If half the playoff teams are perennial, that speaks to something. The answer: They've had quarterbacks. Parity exists in the NFL, but you still need a QB. You may not be able to keep a whole defense or offense together like you could pre FA. But you can keep you're QB. 2000 Ravens aside, the QB is more often the deciding factor than not. We haven't had one. We had a few top defenses, but largely one good half season of QB play since 2000. Hence, the playoff-less streak continues. And it is the longest such streak in the conference. So parity definitely exists, just not in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 The answer: They've had quarterbacks. Parity exists in the NFL, but you still need a QB. You may not be able to keep a whole defense or offense together like you could pre FA. But you can keep your QB. 2000 Ravens aside, the QB is more often the deciding factor than not. We haven't had one. We had a few top defenses, but largely one good half season of QB play since 2000. Hence, the playoff-less streak continues. And it is the longest such streak in the conference. So parity definitely exists, just not in Buffalo. There, corrected. I hate poor grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 I TOTALLY agree a GOOD GM is paramount. The point about QB's is an excellent GM will make it a priority to get one, even then some luck is involved. If the Bills had lost another game or two, Big Ben would be a Buffalo Bill. if Donahoe had half a brain, he would have traded up to get Ben instead of wasting those picks to move up for Losman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts