Parity

[Phobia]

This is a VERY good read.

http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1717

 

[Guest]

Tournament Rules

This is a VERY good read.
http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1717

I am still having trouble with the whole parallel universe feeling of reading from the newsgroup. It is almost as if the are part of the bulletin board but no one can "see" them. (I also have my threads reading in descending order and I have to remember to read it in reverse order rather than like a newspaper article.)

The discussion about parity, and the annual AFC-NFC debate is interesting. Personally, I think the current format is flawed. This format is almost certain to prevent the two best teams in the league from playing one another (although they MIGHT play in the conference championship).

The parity in my mind is caused not as much by free agency, but the fact that there are now too many divisions. Half of the current schedule is played against just three teams. I understand that it exists to promote rivalries but it is -- as the name implies --divisive. The current format favors teams that play in weak divisions, and compounds the error by the chance that the interconference opponents could also be from a weak division.

Strength of schedule arguments are bunk. The only way you can evaluate strength of schedule is through hindsight. To base any schedule on the previous season's results is like attempting to predict the weather this year using last year's data. The only useful analysis you can get from historical data is determining trends but you cannot do so based on one iteration.

They should tournament seed all 32 teams an let them have at it. And now like the guy yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, I will sit back and watch the resulting melee....

 

[pookie]

Re: Tournament Rules

The current format favors teams that play in weak divisions, and compounds the error by the chance that the interconference opponents could also be from a weak division.

**Please see AFC South and NFC North for clarification**

Thank you.

 

[KCWolfman]

NoRespect - With the multiple divisions, you now insure that each team in your division plays a much more similar schedule than in the past.

I love the parity - it makes the NFL unique among all big sports.

Of course if the NFL takes in 2 or more teams in the near future, they would have to consider expanding the wildcard bids - which would make even more a mess, IMO

 

[Tiger_69]

Re: Tournament Rules

Originally posted by NoRespect I am still having trouble with the whole parallel universe feeling of reading from the newsgroup. It is almost as if the are part of the bulletin board but no one can "see" them.

You are not alone (so to speak)....I'm getting an eerie feeling about it too.

This format is almost certain to prevent the two best teams in the league from playing one another (although they MIGHT play in the conference championship).

It wasn't designed to be that way although it looks like it. I'm sure it will look different over the next few years.

For instance, the Patriots have played the Broncos almost every year in the past decade....Why? This will change that.


The parity in my mind is caused not as much by free agency, but the fact that there are now too many divisions. Half of the current schedule is played against just three teams. I understand that it exists to promote rivalries but it is -- as the name implies --divisive. The current format favors teams that play in weak divisions, and compounds the error by the chance that the interconference opponents could also be from a weak division.

Good point here but those teams that win the 'weak' divisions will usually flop in the playoffs.

I wouldn't like a 4 divisions x 8 teams division (only other option, really)because there's only a 16 game schedule and I like the 2 games per division rival....which would account for 14 of those games.

Strength of schedule arguments are bunk. The only way you can evaluate strength of schedule is through hindsight.

As Troy Brown would say....Bingo.

They should tournament seed all 32 teams an let them have at it. And now like the guy yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, I will sit back and watch the resulting melee....

That would be interesting, for sure.

 

[pookie]

This format is almost certain to prevent the two best teams in the league from playing one another (although they MIGHT play in the conference championship).


Guys... How long has it been this way? How many years... and in how many sports have we known that the championship game/series was already played between the 2 best teams prior to the championship? Be it NFL, hockey, or baseball, I'm not sure that any amount of re-alignment will ever fix it!

:Bruins:

 

[KCWolfman]

How long has it been this way? How many years... and in how many sports have we known that the championship game/series was already played between the 2 best teams prior to the championship?

Not always. The Denver/Green Bay Superbowl is a perfect example of the best playing the best.

Your argument is sound for baseball due to no salary cap, for basketball due to the soft cap, and for hockey due to the allowance of late trades in the season.

Football allows the Patriots of this world to knock the raiders of this world out of contention - and I thank God for that - almost as much as Patriot fans do.

 

[pookie]

Your argument is sound for baseball due to no salary cap, for basketball due to the soft cap, and for hockey due to the allowance of late trades in the season.

I don't know about parity in hockey.... As our beloved Bruins proved last year, you can be the best team in your conference and get faced by a lesser opponent playing with a little more heart. And baseball.....the salary cap is very much necessary, but again, it all depends on who WANTS to win. Look at the Texas Rangers. They have Pay-Rod and several other big dollar guys, but what did that buy them? Last place.