Some argue that parity cultivates excitement and unpredictability (such as a 7-6 team being a legitimate playoff contender entering Week 15).
Some argue that parity has bred mediocrity.
What is your opinion?
2006-12-14 04:49:16 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Maybe they should take less teams to the playoffs. If you can not win your division should a team really be able to get a chance to go to the super bowl?? I don't mind the parity though its gives weaker teams like the Giants a chance to make a playoff run. Plus it makes the last games of the year more exciting.
2006-12-14 04:57:36 · answer #1 · answered by hamthugger 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As a fan, it can be frustrating to see your once-great team being torn apart due to cap constraints and free agency.
For the NFL, however, it's a great marketing tool because it keeps so many more fans interested. It used to be that fans of a 7-6 at this point of year would just be playing out the string with their team, but now they're still extremely interested because they know their team has a shot not only to make the playoffs, but to knock somebody off if they get there.
Personally, I'm torn. I like seeing teams rise from the bottom quickly, but I miss the days of domination by a single team - the Cowboys in the 90s, the 49ers in the '80s, and the Steelers before them. It made any loss by them - especially in the playoffs - that much more meaningful and dramatic.
2006-12-14 04:58:51 · answer #2 · answered by Craig S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Definitely good. The upsides outweigh the downsides.
The NFL is the model league in the USA. Its TV revenues are monstrous, its labor relations are good. Owners are making money. Although it might be better for the NFL and the owners than it might be for NFL fans.
Even still, you get a lot more competive games, a lot more markets still in contention. The ability for teams to improve quickly. The salary cap means you have to draft well. The most competitive teams have a lot of skill in a lot of positions, especially on defense, rather than the MOST skilled players in just a few postions.
I think that there are a lot of other reasons for the mediocity in the league. A lot of punks that like to run their mouths, who don't contribute enough to winning as a team (in general, punks don't win they just command lots of money and media attention). A lack of solid starting QB talent (compare today's starting QB's vs. the 90's or the 80's). Some franchises have fostered a non-winning attitude through lots of long-term guaranteed contracts which bring about a "mail it in and get paid" mentality (Redskins syndrome).
Still the NBA, NHL, and MLB all wish to have the success that the NFL is currently enjoying.
2006-12-14 05:11:48 · answer #3 · answered by H_A_V_0_C 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it is good because every year your team has a legitimate change to make some noise (Ex. Ravens 6-10 last year and 10-3 at this point). Dynasties are enjoyable only when your team is the dynasty.
2006-12-14 05:51:30 · answer #4 · answered by MartinPalermo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine it truly is large. you may have the word "any given Sunday" recommend something. it truly is a lot more effective than baseball the position you are able to continually assume communities like the Yankees being contained in the mixture when you consider that they have infinite supplies of money to signal their gamers to multi-12 months deals and entice free brokers from virtually everywhere else.
2016-11-26 19:10:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it's both good and bad for the league it's good because it creates excitement and everybody if properly managed has a shot to compete and have some success but at the same time it's bad because there's no consistency in this league from year to year
2006-12-14 05:26:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋