Comments on: The Myth of NFL Parity

By: Coachie Ballgames

Coachie Ballgames — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:08:55 +0000

There are plenty of small-market NFL teams that have strugged for years and/or have had very little genuine success over the years.
The Minnesota Vikings.
The Kansas City Chiefs. (Simmons pointed out their high-regular season win rate in the 90′s, nothing ever came of it)
The New Orleans Saints
The Jacksonville Jaguars
The Oakland Raiders

I don’t dispute that the lack of money hurts small-market teams in baseball, but I do think WAY too big a deal is made of a supposed lack of parity in baseball. There are fewer small-market teams in baseball, thus the problem is limited to a handful of teams. The Pirates, the Royals, the Reds, the Indians, the Orioles, I dunno, a few others. And even with this list, some of those teams have problems besides money.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:25:04 +0000

Fair enough. If I’m using “parity” wrong, so be it. According to the ALL-KNOWING WIKIPEDIA, it is solely economic w/r/t sports, and that sort of parity exists.

And yes, that’s what I’m saying, as you quote above. I think the complexity of football is obscured by the sport itself, which appears to be very simple. I think figuring these things out is hard, and it’s rare to have someone who genuinely knows what they’re doing.

But yes, I sit at my desk and type corrected.

By: db

db — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:45:56 +0000

What you are saying amounts to this: some teams have better football people upstairs than other teams. This “unequal” dispersion of “brains” makes it hard for “dumber” teams to compete year in year out. While this may be true it has nothing to do with parity. You’re right when you say it’s a “myth” that all teams have an equal chance to win it all each year. Again, that has nothing to do with parity. Nobody ever said parity would kill dynasties, just that every team has an equal chance to develop their organization regardless of geography. That’s all it means. Parity in the NFL context has never implied equality for anything but economic resources. It may be the case that the Lions or Browns consistently suck and the Steelers and Pats consistently don’t suck. But this has nothing to do with parity being a myth.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:10:18 +0000

I’m not sure you read my last comment, but thank you for yours. I just think that the myth that every team can win every year because of revenue sharing is complete B.S. Parity means equal (enough) dispersal of resources, not necessarily economic resources.

By: db

db — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 03:31:57 +0000

The first commenter is right though, the central tenet of NFL parity is that small market teams are able to compete with big market teams because of revenue sharing. The idea that parity doesn’t exist because some teams have more “brains” in their operation gets it exactly wrong. The whole point is to take money out of the equation so that the best organization has a chance to win, regardless of geography. If the teams with more “brains” upstairs win consistently we can say that the competition is level and parity is working. All teams have an equal chance to win based on the competence of the organization not because they happen to make and spend more money by virtue of their location. I’m not sure you understand what is meant by parity in the NFL context.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:53:10 +0000

My point is the the brains gap is a bigger gap to overcome than the money gap is in baseball and thus, actual parity is not real, though economic parity may be.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:14:26 +0000

Good article – i buy your point about the amount of brains necessary to run a good football team surpasses that of a baseball team.

I think the NFL defines parity differently than you do, however.

In the NFL – you will sometimes get a team that is far from a major market winning the whole thing (baltimore, indy). yes the organizations are strong, but in some cases, they have been strong only in recent times – Indy and NE, for instance.

the major media markets tend to dominate baseball – nyc , chicago, bahston.

so i think the parity comes down to the fact that in the NFL, you at least get a better chance than in baseball.