[jazzskins]

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

[Mursilis]

[Deadskins]

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.

[Mursilis]

[jazzskins]

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

[Mursilis]

[welch]

"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.

[jazzskins]

Good response. Thank you.

[VetSkinsFan]

Excellent, excellent explanation Welch!!

[KazooSkinsFan]

[welch]