12/21/24
February 04, 2002
"parity is a myth": Gregg Easterbrook claims in this column that dynasties are not as common as the sports punditry would have us think, while strength of schedule isn't as much a factor in winning - and will be even less of one with realignment.
Yeah, I know, I look forward to TMQ every week(I even bought the book). Maybe SportsFi should set up a tipjar to bring TMQ here! :)
posted by owillis at 01:39 AM on February 05, 2002
I for one can't wait to see what the realignment does to the league. It seems that some teams were given hard roads to the playoffs (ie anyone in the new AFC East), while others were given rather easy routes (ie the Colts). Just to gloat, the Colts have a ridiculously easy opponent list next year. The newly formed AFC South is Indy, the-soon-to-suck Jags, the confused Titans, and the Texans, sure to be the whipping boys of the AFC for years to come(as long as the expansion draft isn't as gracious as it was to the Jags and Panthers). We even get to play the Bengals!! On a side note, I'll gladly pay to get the DirectTv Season Ticket this season just to watch all the games in the reformed Black-and-blue division.
posted by ttrendel at 03:54 AM on February 05, 2002
I'm just glad they basically left the 'Skins division alone. NFC East Classic I call it, without those pesky Car-duh-nals around. We get to play Houston, but also playoff folks like Rams, 49ers, Packers. Yikes. Hope Grimace (Spurrier) pulls us through.
posted by owillis at 05:24 AM on February 05, 2002
interesting points but ... if he had written this article after the superbowl teams were decided, i think he would have had to address the apparent fact that a team can go from dog one season to champion the next. the last 3 super bowl champions were .500 or below the previous season (and i think this stat applies to 6 of the last 8 teams to play in the SB, exceptions being '98 broncos and '99 titans). i've heard several sports talk radio discussions about "what does my team have to do to be the 2003 patriots?" since sunday. it's like every team is legitimately just one step away every year. i don't think these discussions would have happened before the late '90s. the question would instead have been "how does my crap team improve enuff to make the playoffs next year?" "parity" may not be the right word, especially when teams like the panthers are setting single season losing streak records. but something is going on here. something fun to watch.
posted by danostuporstar at 09:30 AM on February 05, 2002
At least in the NFL, there's a chance for parity. Any team can win any year (which is the only kind of parity anybody cares about anyway) which isn't something you can say about the NHL, the NBA or MLB. And I think it's tough to argue that the NFL is the way it is (i.e., fans in any town can honestly believe that their team is actually rebuilding) for any reason other than league policy (salary cap, revenue sharing, strength scheduling, etc.).
posted by MarkAnd at 10:11 AM on February 05, 2002
Nice article, especially his decade-by-decade analysis. (BTW, Luckett needs to join Pat Summerall.) Regarding realignment, if the NFC East is the Classic Coke of the NFL, the AFC South is no doubt the disastrous New Coke of the NFL. I'm a Colts fan. Being put in the AFC South is punishment for past fickleness. They should have put the Ravens in the South, instead of the Jaguars, to make that division completely incestuous.
posted by jacknose at 10:20 AM on February 05, 2002
DanO - it actually does apply to the 99 Titans, as they were 8-8 in 1998, the year before they played the Rams in the SB.
posted by bcb2k2 at 10:28 AM on February 05, 2002
Parity would go a long way in explaining how some teams can run through the league one season, then fall to pieces the next, and vice versa. The main culprit is, of course, the salary cap. Teams spend money to get good quickly, challenge for the trophy for a couple seasons, then go stagnant for a couple years before re-tooling and making another run at it. This is why (or at least, a reason why) the Patriots were able to win it all this year, and the Ravens the previous year. They had the salary cap room to sign the necessary second-tier players to support the main players, in both cases being the defense. Of course, teams also need to have knowledge of who they are signing. Throwing money at players who have one good season is both foolish and damning.
posted by bcb2k2 at 10:43 AM on February 05, 2002
Actually, bcb2k2, from what I understand the Pats don't have a lot of back-loaded salary taking up cap space, at least no more than most teams:
New England is luckier than some past Super Bowl champions in that the Patriots don't have an abundance of key unrestricted free agents to attempt to retain, nor does the franchise face the sort of salary cap crunch confronted by some clubs after the title game.So while they may not repeat as champs, they aren't really going to be forced to slash their roster in 2002 to stay within cap space. Plus, they have a brand-spankin' new stadium to open- and there's no better way to realize the full economic benefits of a new stadium than to christen it as defending Superbowl Champions in one of the most passionate sports regions in the country.
posted by hincandenza at 01:29 PM on February 05, 2002
Actually, that's just what I was saying, hincadenza. They built their team this past off-season with plenty of cap space, signing key contributors for low-salary prices. And, they've achieved what other teams want, without paying the price for it (well, aside from decades of waiting :-> ). In a few years, however, with Brady, Brown, Law and others up for new contracts, the salary cap will become the team's nemesis. I know this...I'm a *sigh* Jaguars fan.
posted by bcb2k2 at 02:22 PM on February 05, 2002
He makes a lot of sense, and he follows up the discussion in his latest column. Of the 16 games 14 are decided by formula, and only two are up for grabs. (Disturbing news: at the end of the column, he hints that it's the last one. I really hope that's not true.)