What is Parity?
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1
What is Parity?
by jazzskins » Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:58 am
I mean in concrete terms....what is parity?
Is it a set of rules? Is it the salary cap? People keep talking about this age of parity and I wonder what, other than the salary cap, are the factors that dictate parity.
Chad
Is it a set of rules? Is it the salary cap? People keep talking about this age of parity and I wonder what, other than the salary cap, are the factors that dictate parity.
Chad
Re: What is Parity?
by Mursilis » Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:45 pm
jazzskins wrote:I mean in concrete terms....what is parity?
Is it a set of rules? Is it the salary cap? People keep talking about this age of parity and I wonder what, other than the salary cap, are the factors that dictate parity.
Chad
The salary cap and the draft order (worst go first) are the main things which dictate parity in the NFL.
by Deadskins » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:28 pm
There is parity because of those, and other factors, but parity simply means that all teams are fairly equal in terms of talent, and could win on any given Sunday.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
by Mursilis » Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:39 pm
JSPB22 wrote:There is parity because of those, and other factors, but parity simply means that all teams are fairly equal in terms of talent, and could win on any given Sunday.
That last part I don't find to be true AT ALL. Sure, the system is designed so that bad teams can improve quickly, but that doesn't mean they will. Bad GMs and coaches will continue to make poor decisions and drag teams down, and thus some teams are much more talented than others. Most hognosticators were able to guess the outcome of games correctly more than 60% of the team, because it's usually easy to see which team has more talent and will win on any given Sunday.
by jazzskins » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:06 pm
I understand what the word parity means. I'm just not sure how in organizational terms it is supposed to be achieved. I'm pretty sure that draft order has always been dictated by records....am I remembering the 80's incorrectly?
I can see the salary cap as one obvious thing, but can that be it?
Chad
I can see the salary cap as one obvious thing, but can that be it?
Chad
by Mursilis » Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:17 pm
jazzskins wrote:I understand what the word parity means. I'm just not sure how in organizational terms it is supposed to be achieved. I'm pretty sure that draft order has always been dictated by records....am I remembering the 80's incorrectly?
I can see the salary cap as one obvious thing, but can that be it?
Chad
Pretty much.
by welch » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:27 pm
"Parity" is a goal that the team owners, meaning the NFL, wants. Teams have always drafted in reverse order of finish.
One change in the '80s was to give a softer schedule to each team that finished last in their conference. They played each other, for instance.
That didn't pare away the advantage that teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants, and 49ers had, advantage gained from being well led, and advantage that usually meant those teams made more money.
When the players union lost the '87 strike, the NFL instituted their own idea of free agency, called "Plan B". In Plan B, each team could protect about 30 players each year. The others became free agents. Jack Kent Cooke was happy to pay good money to reserve players -- Cooke's only goal was to stand next to Joe Gibbs when they awarded the trophy at the Super Bowl.
Later, the union, or, more realistically, the players agents, won a court case declaring full free agency. Art Rooney, a founder of the league, argued that teams like his would never compete with Cooke's Redskins or the Giants, so he persuaded the owners to install a salary cap.
As best I remember 15 years later, the cap was about $60 million a year, and the Redskin payroll was $84 million. You could say that the cap was aimed at the Redskins.
Parity today?
In theory...that is, what I thought in about '94...skilled teams would find good players and dopey teams would sign them away. Before free agency, any fan could tell you the starting QB of any team. Afterward, well, QB's and other stars went here, there, and everywhere. The Cowboys had an advantage early on, because they had a young team on which many players had signed their first contracts for small salaries.
After those players got to the end of their first contracts, everything went to mush.
My hunch, now, is that teams will do well if they draft well, scout well (for undrafted free agents), and drop players when they demand star salaries. That's something like what MLB has discovered, even with a cap.
It's back to the same principles as before free agency: good organizations, good scouting and good coaching will win games.
I think that the Redskins organization disintegrated under Snyder. The team now seems to have a plan to scout more and sign big-names less.
However, free agency still means a team can go from good to mediocre in one season if a couple of good players sign somewhere else. Like watching teams bounce on a trampoline.
One change in the '80s was to give a softer schedule to each team that finished last in their conference. They played each other, for instance.
That didn't pare away the advantage that teams like the Redskins, Cowboys, Giants, and 49ers had, advantage gained from being well led, and advantage that usually meant those teams made more money.
When the players union lost the '87 strike, the NFL instituted their own idea of free agency, called "Plan B". In Plan B, each team could protect about 30 players each year. The others became free agents. Jack Kent Cooke was happy to pay good money to reserve players -- Cooke's only goal was to stand next to Joe Gibbs when they awarded the trophy at the Super Bowl.
Later, the union, or, more realistically, the players agents, won a court case declaring full free agency. Art Rooney, a founder of the league, argued that teams like his would never compete with Cooke's Redskins or the Giants, so he persuaded the owners to install a salary cap.
As best I remember 15 years later, the cap was about $60 million a year, and the Redskin payroll was $84 million. You could say that the cap was aimed at the Redskins.
Parity today?
In theory...that is, what I thought in about '94...skilled teams would find good players and dopey teams would sign them away. Before free agency, any fan could tell you the starting QB of any team. Afterward, well, QB's and other stars went here, there, and everywhere. The Cowboys had an advantage early on, because they had a young team on which many players had signed their first contracts for small salaries.
After those players got to the end of their first contracts, everything went to mush.
My hunch, now, is that teams will do well if they draft well, scout well (for undrafted free agents), and drop players when they demand star salaries. That's something like what MLB has discovered, even with a cap.
It's back to the same principles as before free agency: good organizations, good scouting and good coaching will win games.
I think that the Redskins organization disintegrated under Snyder. The team now seems to have a plan to scout more and sign big-names less.
However, free agency still means a team can go from good to mediocre in one season if a couple of good players sign somewhere else. Like watching teams bounce on a trampoline.
- VetSkinsFan
- Posts: 7652
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:31 am
- Location: NoVA
by VetSkinsFan » Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:41 pm
Excellent, excellent explanation Welch!! 
Call it the human factor Murs, b/c that's what sets the ideals apart from reality.
Mursilis wrote:JSPB22 wrote:There is parity because of those, and other factors, but parity simply means that all teams are fairly equal in terms of talent, and could win on any given Sunday.
That last part I don't find to be true AT ALL. Sure, the system is designed so that bad teams can improve quickly, but that doesn't mean they will. Bad GMs and coaches will continue to make poor decisions and drag teams down, and thus some teams are much more talented than others. Most hognosticators were able to guess the outcome of games correctly more than 60% of the team, because it's usually easy to see which team has more talent and will win on any given Sunday.
Call it the human factor Murs, b/c that's what sets the ideals apart from reality.
...any given Sunday....
RIP #21 Sean Taylor. You will be loved and adored by Redskins fans forever!!!!!
GSPODS:
The National Anthem sucks.
What a useless piece of propagandist rhetoric that is.
RIP #21 Sean Taylor. You will be loved and adored by Redskins fans forever!!!!!
GSPODS:
The National Anthem sucks.
What a useless piece of propagandist rhetoric that is.
- KazooSkinsFan
- Posts: 10197
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 3:00 pm
- Location: Kazmania
by KazooSkinsFan » Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:48 pm
welch wrote:"Parity" is a goal that the team owners, meaning the NFL, wants. Teams have always drafted in reverse order of finish...
I thought parity was a mocking imitation. Like Snyder is a parity of a competent NFL owner.
Oh, no, wait, that's PARODY. My bad, never mind.
OK, I've been defending Snyder (process wise, not decision wise) but I had to take that one.
Groucho: Man does not control his own fate. The women in his life do that for him
Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
Proverb: Failure is not falling down. Failure is not getting up again
Twain: A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way
11 posts
• Page 1 of 1